Background The first-in-class antibody-drug conjugate TAK-264 (formerly MLN0264) consists of an antibody targeting guanylyl cyclase C (GCC) conjugated to monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE) via a peptide linker. This phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of TAK-264 in patients with adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction expressing GCC, who had progressed on ≥1 line of prior therapy. Methods This study used a two-stage design, with an interim analysis conducted after stage I to determine whether to continue to stage II or discontinue on the grounds of futility. Adult patients with gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma expressing low, intermediate, or high GCC levels received TAK-264 1.8 mg/kg as a 30-min intravenous infusion once every 21 days, for up to 1 year. The primary endpoint was objective response rate. Radiographic assessments of tumor burden were performed every 2 cycles (6 weeks). Results A total of 38 patients participated in the study. Patients received a median of 2 (range 1-14) cycles; 8 (21%) received at least 6 cycles. The most common adverse events were nausea (53%), fatigue (32%), and decreased appetite (29%). Grade ≥3 events including anemia, diarrhea, and neutropenia were seen in 14 (37%) patients. Systemic exposure to TAK-264 was maintained throughout each treatment cycle. Two patients (6%) with intermediate GCC expression had objective responses. Conclusions TAK-264 demonstrated a manageable safety profile in this patient population. The stage I interim analysis did not support continuation to stage II of the study.

BackgroundThe Janus kinase/signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK‐STAT) signaling pathway plays a key role in the systemic inflammatory response in many cancers, including colorectal cancer (CRC). This study evaluated the addition of ruxolitinib, a potent JAK1/2 inhibitor, to regorafenib in patients with relapsed/refractory metastatic CRC.MethodsIn this two‐part, multicenter, phase 2 study, eligible adult patients had metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0‐2; received fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan‐based chemotherapy, an anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor therapy (if no contraindication); and if KRAS wild‐type (and no contraindication), an anti‐epidermal growth factor receptor therapy; and progressed following the last administration of approved therapy. Patients who received previous treatment with regorafenib, had an established cardiac or gastrointestinal disease, or had an active infection requiring treatment were excluded. The study was conducted in 95 sites in North America, European Union, Asia Pacific, and Israel. After an open‐label, safety run‐in phase (part 1; ruxolitinib 20 mg twice daily [BID] plus regorafenib 160 mg once daily [QD]), the double‐blind, randomized phase (part 2) was conducted wherein patients were randomized 1:1 to receive ruxolitinib 15 mg BID plus regorafenib 160 mg QD [ruxolitinib group] or placebo plus regorafenib 160 mg QD [placebo group]. Part 2 included substudy 1 (patients with high systemic inflammation, ie, C‐reactive protein [CRP] >10 mg/L) and substudy 2 (patients with low systemic inflammation, ie, CRP ≤10 mg/L); the primary endpoint was overall survival (OS).ResultsThe study was terminated early; substudy 1 was terminated for futility at interim analysis and substudy 2 was terminated per sponsor decision. Ruxolitinib 20 mg BID was well tolerated in the safety run‐in (n = 11). Overall, 396 patients were randomized (substudy 1: n = 175 [ruxolitinib group, n = 87; placebo group, n = 88]; substudy 2: n = 221 [ruxolitinib group, n = 110; placebo group, n = 111]). There was no significant difference in OS or progression‐free survival (PFS) between treatments in substudy 1 (OS: hazard ratio [HR] = 1.040 [95% confidence interval: 0.725‐1.492]; PFS: HR = 1.004 [0.724‐1.391]) and substudy 2 (OS: HR = 0.767 [0.478‐1.231]; PFS: HR = 0.787 [0.576‐1.074]). The most common hematologic adverse event was anemia. No new safety signals with ruxolitinib were identified.ConclusionsAlthough addition of ruxolitinib to regorafenib did not show increased safety concerns in patients with relapsed/refractory metastatic CRC, this combination did not improve OS/PFS vs. regorafenib plus placebo.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The results suggest that over ten years there has been a decrease in the tendency among women to deny their alcohol dependence, and that they more readily accept specific care. In the same period, GPs have benefited from better information about specialized management.

671 Background: N is a multiple angiokinase inhibitor (including VEGFR, PDGFR and FGFR). A randomised Phase III study, LUME-Colon 1 (NCT02149108), evaluated the efficacy and safety of N in pts with refractory mCRC after failure of standard therapies. LUME-Colon 1 showed a statistically significant improvement in PFS (HR [95% CI] 0.58 [0.49–0.69]; p < 0.0001) but no difference in OS (HR [95% CI]: 1.01 [0.86–1.19]; p = 0.8659). Here, we report the HRQoL outcomes. Methods: 768 pts with mCRC adenocarcinoma refractory to standard chemotherapy were randomised 1:1 to receive either N (200 mg bid) + BSC or P (bid) + BSC in 21-day courses until disease progression or undue toxicity. HRQoL was assessed every 21 days using the EORTC QLQ-C30 instrument; the main endpoints of interest were the differences in mean scores up to median follow-up time (treatment difference, TD) for physical functioning (PF) and global health status/QoL (QL) scales using a longitudinal model, with 95% CIs and associated p-values adjusted for baseline stratification factors. Time to deterioration (TTD) of scores and status change ( ≥ 10 point change from baseline) were also assessed. Results: Compliance with questionnaire completion was high ( > 85% in first 12 cycles). Mean baseline (N vs P) PF (80 vs 80) and QL (65 vs 65) scale scores were balanced between treatment arms. The mean TD favoured N vs P for PF scale scores (TD 2.66 [95% CI: 0.97–4.34]; p = 0.0020) and QL scale scores (TD 1.61 [95% CI: −0.04–3.27]; p = 0.0555). TTD of PF (HR 0.84; 95% CI: 0.69–1.03; p = 0.0904) and QL (HR 0.90; 95% CI: 0.75–1.08; p = 0.2674) scores were not significantly different between treatment groups, although the percentage of patients with improved PF (17.2% vs 11.8%; p = 0.0462) and QL scores (30.3% vs 21.6%: p = 0.0102) were both significantly higher for N vs P. Conclusions: In LUME-Colon 1, patient reported outcomes confirmed that overall HRQoL was not impaired by treatment with N. There was evidence for improvement of PF and QL with N vs P, corresponding to the significant increase in PFS observed. Clinical trial information: NCT02149108.

Background:Guselkumab (GUS), an interleukin-23 p19-subunit monoclonal antibody, demonstrated efficacy compared with placebo (PBO) in reducing signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in the phase 3 DISCOVER-1 & 2 studies.1,2Objectives:To evaluate gene expression in the blood of PsA patients (pts) in the DISCOVER-1 & -2 studies and the impact of GUS on the expression of these genes.Methods:Pts were treated with GUS 100 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W); GUS 100 mg at W0, W4, then Q8W; or matching PBO. Whole transcriptome profiling by RNA-sequencing was performed using the Novaseq platform on blood samples obtained from a subset of 673 pts with PsA at baseline across the 2 DISCOVER studies, as well as from 21 demographically (age, sex, and ethnicity) matched healthy controls procured independently of the clinical program. A subgroup (N=227) also had serial blood samples (W0/W4/W24) evaluated; the subgroup pts were selected based on having baseline characteristics (demographics, disease activity, medication use) representative of the overall cross-study PsA population. Significance of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between PsA and healthy controls was defined by a false discovery rate (FDR) <0.05 based on a log-linear model using edgeR. Top genes were defined by significance and |logFC| >1. For cell type analysis, genes that changed with GUS treatment were tested for enrichment using Cibersort. Gene enrichment scores were calculated using Gene Set Variation Analysis (GSVA).Results:To define disease genes, we compared genes at baseline in pts with active PsA vs. healthy control whole blood transcriptomes and detected 355 upregulated and 314 downregulated (top genes shown in Table 1), defined here as core disease genes. Upregulated genes were largely related to neutrophils, monocytes, macrophages, and extracellular matrix, whereas downregulated genes were related to T cells. The upregulated disease genes were significantly decreased and the downregulated disease genes were significantly increased by GUS treatment vs. PBO at W4 and W24 (Fig 1). Upon stratification by Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75% response and American College of Rheumatology 20% response, changes in core disease gene expression from W0 were statistically significant among responders, but not in non-responders, at W4 and W24 (data not shown). We then performed the second differential expression analysis comparing baseline to W4 and W24 for both PBO and GUS treatment arms to define genes that change with treatment arm over time. At W4 and W24 we found many DEGs from baseline with GUS treatment and none with PBO. These included genes related to B-, T-, NK-, and plasma cells (increased by GUS) and neutrophils, monocytes, eosinophils, and macrophages (decreased by GUS), suggestive of a partial normalization of immune cell composition in whole blood.Conclusion:Using whole transcriptome profiling, we detected DEGs in blood samples obtained from PsA pts vs. healthy controls, suggesting a dysregulation of immune cell profiles in PsA. The majority of these disease-associated genes were modulated by GUS, with directionality toward a normalization of whole blood transcriptomic signatures.References:[1]Deodhar A et al. Lancet. 2020;395:1115.[2]Mease P et al. Lancet. 2020;395:1126.Table 1.Top DEGs derived from PsA vs. healthy whole blood transcriptomes.Upregulated in PsADownregulated in PsAGenelogFClogCPMFDRGenelogFClogCPMFDRADGRG75.92-0.900.02101AK8-1.36-1.061.61E-07ADAMTS24.060.820.006466FTCD-1.48-1.741.67E-05PGF3.21-0.680.006466GPR15-1.541.811.67E-05PCSK93.21-2.960.023872CHRM3-1.54-2.629.6E-08OLAH2.760.750.004539RFPL4AL1-1.69-3.340.009738MAOA2.55-0.260.005463SPACA3-1.85-3.230.000216SLC2A142.300.590.022594VANGL2-1.95-1.799.6E-08MMP12.25-1.160.004745RFPL4A-2.04-1.280.004539DAAM22.124.310.024628GLYATL2-2.77-2.781.93E-15BCAR1-3.13-2.586.24E-26Bold indicates positive change. CPM = counts per million.Disclosure of Interests:Stefan Siebert Consultant of: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen (previously Celgene), Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, UCB, Kristen Sweet Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development LLC, Christopher T. Ritchlin Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, and UCB, Elizabeth C Hsia Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development LLC, Alexa Kollmeier Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development LLC, Xie L Xu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development LLC, Qingxuan Song Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development LLC, Michelle Miron Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development LLC