440 Background: Futibatinib, an irreversible FGFR1–4 inhibitor, is being investigated for the treatment of advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCC) with FGFR2 fusions/rearrangements. We conducted an indirect treatment comparison to evaluate efficacy outcomes with futibatinib for advanced iCC patients from the FOENIX-CCA2 trial (NCT02052778) relative to published data for chemotherapy and FGFR inhibitors. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify clinical trials for FGFR inhibitors published 01/2015-02/2021, with additional targeted searches for chemotherapy data. A simulated treatment comparison was conducted using individual-level patient data from FOENIX-CCA2 and published aggregate data from comparator trials, applying regression models to adjust for between-trial differences in baseline characteristics. Population-adjusted Cox regression models were used for base case time-to-event outcomes (progression-free survival [PFS], overall survival [OS], duration of response [DOR]) and binomial-logistic regressions for binary outcomes (objective response rate [ORR]). Results: Two studies of FGFR inhibitors among previously treated patients with FGFR2 fusions/rearrangements were identified with sufficient data for analysis: FOENIX-CCA2 (n=103) and FIGHT-202 (n=107, pemigatinib). Two studies were identified for chemotherapy in this setting (an analysis of prior systemic therapy in the FIGHT-202 cohort [n=53] and a natural history study using a clinicogenomic database [n=71]). Comparisons of futibatinib with chemotherapy showed significantly lower risk of progression or death with futibatinib (table). Comparisons of futibatinib with pemigatinib showed similar outcomes between treatments (table), however, there was a numerical advantage for futibatinib in all efficacy parameters. Conclusions: Data suggest that futibatinib provides longer survival vs chemotherapy among previously treated advanced iCC patients with FGFR2 fusions/rearrangements. No statistically significant differences were observed in efficacy outcomes between futibatinib and pemigatinib, although numerical trends favored futibatinib. Molecular detail such as improved activity against co-mutated tumours and resistance mutations may explain such trends. [Table: see text]

No abstract

A4351.352) and 0.385(0.248; 0.596) respectively for OS and PFS. Survival extrapolation provided estimates of 8 month of additional OS gain for Lenvatinib vs. sorafenib, with MAIC extrapolation showing largest gain and a good model fit. ConClusions: This analysis demonstrated that in absence of head-to-head trials, MAIC is an important methodology to adjust for population and trial differences, especially in orphan diseases where limited data are available. MAIC can increase reliability of comparativeeffectiveness data and support payers decision making.