Background Temozolomide offers minimal benefit in patients with glioblastoma with unmethylated O 6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter status, hence the need for novel therapies. This study evaluated whether veliparib, a brain-penetrant poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, acts synergistically with radiation and temozolomide. Methods VERTU was a multicenter 2:1 randomized phase II trial in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma and MGMT-unmethylated promotor status. The experimental arm consisted of veliparib and radiotherapy, followed by adjuvant veliparib and temozolomide. The standard arm consisted of concurrent temozolomide and radiotherapy, followed by adjuvant temozolomide. The primary objective was to extend the 6-month progression-free survival (PFS-6m) in the experimental arm. Results A total of 125 participants were enrolled, with 84 in the experimental arm and 41 in the standard arm. The median age was 61 years, 70% were male, 59% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0, and 87% underwent macroscopic resection. PFS-6m was 46% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 36–57%) in the experimental arm and 31% (95% CI: 18–46%) in the standard arm. Median OS was 12.7 months (95% CI: 11.4–14.5 months) in the experimental arm and 12.8 months (95% CI: 9.5–15.8 months) in the standard arm. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia and neutropenia, with no new safety signals. Conclusion The veliparib-containing regimen was feasible and well tolerated. However, there was insufficient evidence of clinical benefit in this population. Further information from correlative translational work and other trials of PARP inhibitors in glioblastoma are still awaited.

Background: Treatment outcomes are poorly characterized in patients with metastatic chromophobe renal cell cancer (chrRCC), a subtype of renal cell carcinoma.Objective: This retrospective series aims to determine metastatic chrRCC treatment outcomes in the targeted therapy era.Methods: A retrospective data analysis was performed using the IMDC dataset of 4970 patients to determine metastatic chrRCC treatment outcomes in the targeted therapy era.Results: 109/4970 (2.2%) patients had metastatic chrRCC out of all patients with mRCC treated with targeted therapy. These patients were compared with 4861/4970 (97.8%) clear cell mRCC (ccRCC) patients. Patients with metastatic chrRCC had a similar OS compared to patients with ccRCC (23.8 months (95% CI 16.7 – 28.1) vs 22.4 months (95% CI 21.4 – 23.4), respectively (p = 0.0908). Patients with IMDC favorable (18%), intermediate (59%) and poor risk (23%) had median overall survivals of 31.4, 27.3, and 4.8 months, respectively (p = 0.028).Conclusions: To the authors’ knowledge, this is the largest series of metastatic chrRCC patients and these results set new benchmarks for survival in clinical trial design and patient counseling. The IMDC criteria risk categories seem to stratify patients into appropriate favourable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, although larger patient numbers are required. It appears that outcomes between metastatic chrRCC and ccRCC are similar when treated with conventional targeted therapies. Patients with metastatic chrRCC can be treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors and enrolled in clinical trials to further measure outcomes in this rare patient population.

637 Background: Effective therapies are limited for advanced metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients (pts) who have progressed after 1st line gemcitabine-based chemotherapy (Gem). FOLFOX has clinical benefit in Gem-refractory PDAC pts. A phase 1 trial demonstrated promising activity with pegilodecakin (PEG; pegylated IL-10) and FOLFOX in Gem-refractory PDAC pts, providing rationale for the phase 3 trial (SEQUOIA; NCT02923921). Methods: SEQUOIA is a randomized phase 3 study of FOLFOX alone or with PEG in Gem-refractory PDAC pts. Pts were randomized 1:1, excluding pts with prior surgery and radiation, and received FOLFOX ( dI-Leucovorin [400 mg/m2], oxaliplatin [85 mg/m2] followed by bolus 5-FU [400 mg/m2], and a 46-48 hr infusion of 5-FU [2400 mg/m2]) on day 1 of a 14-day cycle up to 12 cycles. PEG + FOLFOX arm received PEG (0.4 mg/d if ≤80kg and 0.8mg/d if > 80 kg) on Days 1-5 then Days 8-12 + FOLFOX. Pts could continue PEG monotherapy (0.8mg/d if ≤ 80 kg and 1.6 mg/d if > 80 kg) after FOLFOX discontinuation. Primary objective was OS. Secondary objectives included PFS, ORR per RECIST 1.1, and safety. Assuming OS HR of 0.74, the study was powered to 85% at 2-sided α = 0.05 with ~566 pts to detect superiority of PEG + FOLFOX. Results: As of Sept 9, 2019, 567 pts were randomized to PEG + FOLFOX (283) or FOLFOX (284). The majority (94.7%) had 1st line Gem+nab paclitaxel. The mOS was similar between FOLFOX + PEG arm [5.8 months] and FOLFOX arm [6.3 months] with HR = 1.045 (95% CI [0.863, 1.265], p = 0.6565). No statistical difference was observed for PFS, mPFS was 2.1 months in both arms with HR = 0.981, (95% CI [0.808, 1.190], p = 0.8144). ORR was 4.6% on the PEG+FOLFOX arm and 5.6% on the FOLFOX arm. Grade ≥3 adverse events that were 5% higher on the PEG+FOLFOX arm included thrombocytopenia (25.2% vs. 3.6%), anemia (16.2% vs. 4.0%), neutropenia (29.5% vs. 22.7%), and fatigue (17.6% vs. 10.8%). Conclusions: The addition of PEG to FOLFOX did not improve efficacy (OS, PFS, ORR) in advanced PDAC pts who have progressed after 1st line Gem-containing therapy. Safety findings were consistent with previous data observed from PEG + chemotherapy; toxicity was manageable and tolerable. Clinical trial information: NCT02923921.

No abstract

422 Background: The CELESTIAL, RESORCE, and REACH-2 trials showed survival benefit of C, Reg, and Ram, respectively, when given after S to HCC patients. However, strict eligibility criteria (SEC) may limit generalizability. In clinical practice, modified eligibility criteria (MEC) may be used to offer treatments to select patients with slightly worse performance status (ECOG 2) or limited liver dysfunction (Child-Pugh (CP) B7). This study evaluated which patients in the real world would be eligible for these new treatments using SEC and MEC, and their prognostic impact. Methods: HCC patients who received S between 01/2008-06/2017 in British Columbia, Alberta, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, and Sunnybrook Cancer Centre in Canada were included. Clinical, pathologic, laboratory and outcome data were collected. Patients were classified as eligible or ineligible based on available CELESTIAL, RESORCE, REACH-2 clinical trial SEC or MEC. Median overall survival (mOS) for these groups was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: A total of 730 patients were identified. Using SEC, only 13.1% of patients would be eligible for C, Reg, or Ram (table). Expanding eligibility to include patients who meet MEC increased the proportion of eligible patients to 31.7%. Patients who met SEC had longer mOS compared to those who were ineligible. The most common reasons for not meeting SEC across all 3 trials were ECOG ≥ 2 (61.7%) and CP ≥ B (63.9%). Higher ineligibility for Reg or Ram was likely driven by strict trial-specific criteria, with 28.0% of patients ineligible for Reg due to S intolerance and 58.9% ineligible for Ram due to AFP < 400. Conclusions: Only a small proportion of real-world HCC patients would be eligible for C, Reg, or Ram based on SEC. More than twice as many patients would likely receive treatment if MEC were applied. If MEC are adopted, ongoing real-world evidence generation will be important to evaluate outcomes in these unstudied patient groups. [Table: see text]

492 Background: Immuno-oncology (IO) checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated efficacy in metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) treatment. Real world data is required to assess outcomes when applied to the general population. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed using the IMDC database. It included mRCC patients treated with IO agents, including atezolizumab (Atezo), avelumab, ipilimumab, nivolumab (Nivo), and pembrolizumab (Pembro). Some patients were treated with combination therapy with a targeted agent. Patients may have received IO therapy as first-, second-, third-, or fourth-line treatment. Overall survival (OS), treatment duration, and overall response rates (ORR) were calculated. Results: 255 patients with mRCC treated with IO therapy were included. The ORR to IO therapy in those patients who were evaluable was 29% (32% first-, 22% second-, 33% third-, and 32% fourth-line therapy). Patients treated with second-line IO therapy were divided into favorable, intermediate, and poor risk using IMDC criteria; the corresponding median OS rates were not reached, 26.7 mo, and 12.1 mo, respectively (p<0.0001). Conclusions: Response rates to IO therapies appear to remain consistent no matter which line of therapy it is used in. Within second-line treatment, IMDC criteria appear to stratify patients appropriately into favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups. Survival data are premature and will be updated. In contrast to Nivo clinical trial data, where median treatment duration was 5.5 mo, longer treatment length is observed in real world practice. [Table: see text]

2011 Background: TMZ offers minimal benefit in uMGMT GBM pts. V is synergistic with both RT and TMZ in preclinical models, safe when combined with either RT or TMZ clinically, but the triplet (V+RT+TMZ) is poorly tolerated. This study examined a novel approach to patients with uMGMT GBM. Methods: VERTU is a randomized Phase 2 trial comparing Arm A (Standard of care) = RT (60Gy/30 fractions) + TMZ (75mg/m2 daily) followed by TMZ (150–200mg/m2D 1–5) every 28 days for 6 cycles vs Arm B (experimental arm) = RT (60Gy/30 fractions) + V (200mg PO BID) followed by TMZ (150–200mg/m2D 1–5) + V (40mg bid, D 1–7) every 28 days for 6 cycles in pts with newly diagnosed centrally determined uMGMT GBM. The study aims to randomize 120 pts (2:1 to the experimental arm). The primary endpoint was 6 months progression free survival (6mPFS) with multiple secondary and tertiary endpoints. Evaluation of feasibility and safety was planned after completion of RT in the first 60 pts (Stage 1). (ANZCTR #ACTRN12615000407594). Tumor tissue and serial bloods were collected for translational research. Results: 125 pts were randomized (41 Arm A, 84 Arm B). Mean (range) age 58 (22–78) years, 70% male, 61% ECOG 0, 86% macroscopic resection, 14% biopsy. At the time of analysis (cut-off date: 04/Feb/2019), median follow up was 16.5 months, 76 pts had died. 6mPFS (95% CI, Kaplan-Meier estimate) was 37% (22–52) in Arm A and 53% (41–63) in Arm B, and median PFS was 4.4m (95% CI 4.0–6.0) for Arm A and 6.2m (95% CI 4.9–7.1) for Arm B (HR = 0.81, 95%CI 0.54–1.21). 50% of pts in Arm A and 53% in Arm B experienced ≥ G3 adverse events (AEs). The most common G 3/4 AEs were decreased platelets, seizures, hyperglycemia and diarrhea (each 5%) in Arm A and decreased platelets (13%) and seizures (11%) in Arm B. Conclusions: In this multicenter, randomized study, the experimental therapy was feasible and well tolerated. The observed 6mPFS appeared longer in Arm B, but at the time of submitting the abstract, this result did not meet the prespecified primary endpoint. More mature results will be presented at the annual meeting. QoL in VERTU is reported separately. Central MR review, biomarker analyses, including DNA repair and methylation signature analyses are ongoing. Clinical trial information: ACTRN12615000407594.

498 Background: Fourthline targeted therapy efficacy in mRCC is not well characterized and is not reimbursed in many jurisdictions worldwide. Methods: The IMDC consists of consecutive patient series from 35 international cancer centers. It was queried for mRCC patients who received fourth line targeted therapy. Kaplan Meier estimates were used for time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS). Results: 594 out of 7498 (8%) mRCC patients initially treated with first line targeted therapy eventually received fourth line therapy from a class of approved agents. Baseline characteristics are displayed in Table 1. The most common fourth line therapies were everolimus 17%, sorafenib 15%, axitinib 13%, pazopanib 13%, sunitinib 13%, nivolumab 7%. IMDC prognostic group distributions (Heng et al JCO 2009) and their associated survivals (both determined from fourth line therapy initiation) were 5% favorable risk (OS 23.1 (14.7-not reached)), 66% intermediate risk (OS 13.8 (11.4-17.5)), and 29% poor risk (OS 7.8 (4.93-12.2)) (OS p<0.0001). Overall response rate for fourth-line therapy was 12.5% and 41.5% had stable disease in those patients that were evaluable (n=407). Median TTF on fourth line therapy was 4.40 months (95% CI 3.98-5.06) and median OS from fourth line therapy initiation was 12.8 months (95% CI 11.4-14.4). Conclusions: Fourth line targeted therapy has demonstrated activity, is uncommon, and should be offered to clinically eligible patients. Further studies are required to determine appropriate sequencing. IMDC criteria appear to stratify favorable/intermediate/poor risk patients well in the fourth line setting. [Table: see text]