Purpose: Here, we report results of the first phase I study of erdafitinib, a potent, oral pan-FGFR inhibitor. Patients and Methods: Patients age !18 years with advanced solid tumors for which standard antineoplastic therapy was no longer effective were enrolled (NCT01703481). Parts 2 to 4 employed molecular screening for activating FGFR genomic alterations. In patients with such alterations, two selected doses/schedules identified during part 1 doseescalation [9 mg once daily and 10 mg intermittently (7 days on/7 days off), as previously published (Tabernero JCO 2015;33:3401-8)] were tested. Results: The study included 187 patients. The most common treatment-related adverse events were hyperphosphatemia (64%), dry mouth (42%), and asthenia (28%), generally grade 1/2 severity. All cases of hyperphosphatemia were grade 1/2 except for 1 grade 3 event. Skin, nail, and eye changes were observed in 43%, 33%, and 28% of patients, respectively (mostly grade 1/2 and reversible after temporary dosing interruption). Urothelial carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma were most responsive to erdafitinib, with objective response rates (ORR) of 46.2% (12/26) and 27.3% (3/11), respectively, in response-evaluable patients with FGFR mutations or fusions. All patients with urothelial carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma who responded to erdafitinib carried FGFR mutations or fusions. Median response duration was 5.6 months for urothelial carcinoma and 11.4 months for cholangiocarcinoma. ORRs in other tumor types were <10%. Conclusions: Erdafitinib shows tolerability and preliminary clinical activity in advanced solid tumors with genomic changes in the FGFR pathway, at two different dosing schedules and with particularly encouraging responses in urothelial carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma.

Background: Treatment options for patients with advanced esophageal or esophagogastric junction (EGJ) cancer are limited. Current guidelines for first-line treatment of advanced esophageal or EGJ cancer recommend chemotherapy containing a platinum and a fluoropyrimidine agent. Pembrolizumab demonstrated antitumor activity in previously treated patients with advanced esophageal cancer and in patients with gastroesophageal junction cancer. Aim: To describe the design and rationale for the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III KEYNOTE-590 study, which will be conducted to investigate pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with advanced esophageal or EGJ cancer.Clinical trial registry & ID: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03189719.

Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, PUMA Biotechnology, Seattle Genetics, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Zymeworks, outside of the submitted work. R. Bahleda does not have conflicts of interests to disclose. C. Hierro reports grants from Bayer and Merck, has served on the speaker bureau for Merck Sharp & Dohme, and has received travel expenses from Amgen and Merck. M. Sanson reports research support from AstraZeneca, has served on the data and safety monitoring board for Genenta, has served on the advisory board on Abbvie, and has received travel expenses from Abbvie. J. Bridgewater reports advisory board fees from Taiho Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. H-T. Arkenau is an investigator in studies sponsored by Taiho and reports an advisory role in Guardant, Roche, and Servier. B. Tran has served in an advisory role at

Purpose: Most hyperprogression disease (HPD) definitions are based on tumor growth rate (TGR). However, there is still no consensus on how to evaluate this phenomenon. Experimental Design: We investigated two independent cohorts of patients with advanced solid tumors treated in phase I trials with (i) programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/PD-L1 antibodies in monotherapy or combination and (ii) targeted agents (TA) in unapproved indications. A Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1-based definition of hyperprogression was developed. The primary endpoint was the assessment of the rate of HPD in patients treated with ICIs or TAs using both criteria (RECIST and TGR) and the impact on overall survival (OS) in patients who achieved PD as best response. Results: Among 270 evaluable patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, 29 PD-1/PD-L1-treated patients (10.7%) had HPD by RECIST definition. This group had a significantly lower OS (median of 5.23 months; 95% CI, 3.97-6.45) when compared with the non-HPD progressor group (median, 7.33 months; 95% CI, 4.53-10.12; HR ¼ 1.73, 95% CI, 1.05-2.85; P ¼ 0.04). In a subset of 221 evaluable patients, 14 (6.3%) were categorized as HPD using TGR criteria, differences in median OS (mOS) between this group (mOS 4.2 months; 95% IC, 2.07-6.33) and non-HPD progressors (n ¼ 44) by TGR criteria (mOS 6.27 months; 95% CI, 3.88-8.67) were not statistically significant (HR 1.4, 95% IC, 0.70-2.77; P ¼ 0.346). Among 239 evaluable patients treated with TAs, 26 (10.9%) were classified as having HPD by RECIST and 14 using TGR criteria in a subset of patients. No differences in OS were observed between HPD and non-HPD progressors treated with TAs. Conclusions: HPD measured by TGR or by RECIST was observed in both cohorts of patients; however, in our series, there was an impact on survival only in the immune-checkpoint inhibitor cohort when evaluated by RECIST. We propose a new way to capture HPD using RECIST criteria that is intuitive and easy to use in daily clinical practice.

No abstract