Primary analysis of MOUNTAINEER: A phase 2 study of tucatinib and trastuzumab for HER2-positive mCRC

Background: Despite the occurrence of HER2 amplification/overexpression (HER2+) in ~3% to 5% of all patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and up to ~10% of patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC, there are currently no FDA- or EMA-approved HER2-directed therapies for HER2+ mCRC. Patients with mCRC who progress on early lines of chemotherapy regimens receive limited clinical benefit from current standard-of-care treatments. Tucatinib is a highly selective, HER2-directed, tyrosine kinase inhibitor. The MOUNTAINEER trial (NCT03043313) was initiated to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the investigational combination of tucatinib with trastuzumab in patients with HER2+ mCRC. Here we present results from the primary analysis of MOUNTAINEER. Methods: MOUNTAINEER is a multi-center, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial conducted in the US and Europe. Eligible patients had HER2+ (one or more local tests: 3+ immunohistochemistry, 2+ immunohistochemistry with amplification by in situ hybridization, or amplification by next‑generation sequencing of tumor tissue) and RAS wild-type mCRC with progression on or intolerance to fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and an anti-VEGF antibody. Measurable disease and an ECOG performance status of 0–2 were required. Previous HER2-directed therapies were not permitted. The trial initially consisted of a single cohort (Cohort A) to be treated with tucatinib (300 mg PO BID) and trastuzumab (8 mg/kg IV then 6 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks). The trial was expanded to include patients randomised 4:3 to receive tucatinib + trastuzumab (Cohort B) or tucatinib monotherapy (Cohort C). The primary endpoint is confirmed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR) in Cohorts A+B. Secondary endpoints include duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety and tolerability. Results: MOUNTAINEER enrolled 117 patients between 08Aug2017 and 22Sept2021. Data cutoff was 28Mar2022. The median age was 56.0 years (range, 24, 77), and baseline characteristics were balanced across cohorts. Eighty-six patients received at least 1 dose of study treatment in Cohorts A+B, and 30 patients received tucatinib monotherapy in Cohort C (total, 116). The overall median duration of follow-up was 16.3 months (IQR, 10.8, 28.2). In Cohorts A+B, the confirmed ORR by BICR was 38.1% (95% CI, 27.7, 49.3). The median DOR was 12.4 months (95% CI, 8.5, 20.5). The median PFS was 8.2 months (95% CI, 4.2, 10.3), and the median OS was 24.1 months (95% CI, 20.3, 36.7). The most common adverse events (AEs) in Cohorts A+B were diarrhoea (64.0%), fatigue (44.2%), nausea (34.9%), and infusion-related reaction (20.9%);the most common AE of grade ≥3 was hypertension (7.0%). Adverse events leading to tucatinib discontinuation in Cohorts A+B occurred in 5.8% of patients and included alanine amino transferase increase (2.3%), COVID-19 pneumonia (1.2%), cholangitis (1.2%), and fatigue (1.2%). No deaths resulted from AEs. Conclusions: In patients with chemotherapy-refractory HER2+ mCRC, tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab was well tolerated with clinically meaningful antitumor activity including durable responses and a median overall survival of 2 years. Tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab has the potential to become a new standard of care for patients with HER2+ mCRC. Clinical trial identification: NCT03043313. Editorial acknowledgement: The authors thank Joseph Giaconia of MMS Holdings, Michigan, USA for providing medical writing support/editorial support, which was funded by Seagen Inc., Bothell, WA, USA in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP3) guidelines. Legal entity responsible for the study: Seagen Inc. Funding: Seagen Inc. Disclosures: J. Strickler: Advisory / Consultancy: Seagen, Bayer, Pfizer;Research grant / Funding (institution): Amgen, Roche/Genentech, Seagen. A. Cercek: Advisory / Consultancy: Bayer, Merck, Seagen;Research grant / Funding (institution): Seagen, GSK, Rgenix. T. André: Honoraria (self : Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gritstone Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline, Haliodx, Kaleido Biosciences, Merck & Co., Inc., Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Servier, Merck & Co., Inc, Servier;Advisory / Consultancy: Astellas Pharma, BMS, Gritstone Oncology, Transgène, Roche/Ventana, Seagen, Merck & Co., Inc, Servier;Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS, Seagen, GSK;Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: BMS, Merck & Co., Inc. K. Ng: Advisory / Consultancy: Seattle Genetics, Bicara Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline;Research grant / Funding (institution): Pharmavite, Evergrande Group, Janssen. E. Van Cutsem: Advisory / Consultancy: AbbVie, Array, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Biocartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi, Halozyme, GSK, Helsinn, Incyte, Ipsen, Janssen Research, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck KGaA, Mirati, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Servier, Sirtex, Terumo, Taiho, TRIGR, Zymeworks;Research grant / Funding (institution): Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Roche, Servier. C. Wu: Research grant / Funding (institution): Seagen. A. Paulson: Research grant / Funding (institution): Seattle Genetics. J. Hubbard: Research grant / Funding (institution): Seattle Genetics. H. Lenz: Honoraria (self): BMS, Bayer, Roche;Advisory / Consultancy: Bayer, Merck, Roche;Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: BMS, Bayer, Merck KG;Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Fulgent. M. Stecher: Full / Part-time employment: SeaGen. W. Feng: Full / Part-time employment: Seagen. T. Bekaii-Saab: Honoraria (self): Royalties: Uptodate;Advisory / Consultancy: Consulting (to institution): Ipsen, Arcus, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Bayer, Genentech, Incyte, Eisai and Merck., Consulting (to self): Stemline, AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Daichii Sankyo, Natera, TreosBio, Celularity, Exact Science, Sobi, Beigene, Kanaph, Astra Zeneca, Deciphera, MJH Life Sciences, Aptitude Health, Illumina and Foundation Medicine, IDMC/DSMB: Fibrogen, Suzhou Kintor, Astra Zeneca, Exelixis, Merck/Eisai, PanCan and 1Globe;Research grant / Funding (institution): Agios, Arys, Arcus, Atreca, Boston Biomedical, Bayer, Eisai, Celgene, Lilly, Ipsen, Clovis, Seattle Genetics, Genentech, Novartis, Mirati, Merus, Abgenomics, Incyte, Pfizer, BMS.;Licensing / Royalties: WO/2018/183488: HUMAN PD1 PEPTIDE VACCINES AND USES THEREOF – Licensed to Imugene, WO/2019/055687: METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR THE TREATMENT OF CANCER CACHEXIA – Licensed to Recursion. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

The impact of COVID-19 on oncology professionals-one year on: lessons learned from the ESMO Resilience Task Force survey series.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has had a significant impact on the well-being and job performance of oncology professionals globally. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Resilience Task Force collaboration set out to investigate and monitor well-being since COVID-19 in relation to work, lifestyle and support factors in oncology professionals 1 year on since the start of the pandemic. METHODS: An online, anonymous survey was conducted in February/March 2021 (Survey III). Key outcome variables included risk of poor well-being or distress (expanded Well-Being Index), feeling burnout (single item from expanded Well-Being Index), and job performance since COVID-19. Longitudinal analysis of responses to the series of three surveys since COVID-19 was carried out, and responses to job demands and resources questions were interrogated. SPSS V.26.0/V.27.0 and GraphPad Prism V9.0 were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: Responses from 1269 participants from 104 countries were analysed in Survey III: 55% (n = 699/1269) female, 54% (n = 686/1269) >40 years, and 69% (n = 852/1230) of white ethnicity. There continues to be an increased risk of poor well-being or distress (n = 464/1169, 40%) and feeling burnout (n = 660/1169, 57%) compared with Survey I (25% and 38% respectively, P < 0.0001), despite improved job performance. Compared with the initial period of the pandemic, more participants report feeling overwhelmed with workload (45% versus 29%, P < 0.0001). There remain concerns about the negative impact of the pandemic on career development/training (43%), job security (37%). and international fellowship opportunities (76%). Alarmingly, 25% (n = 266/1086) are considering changing their future career with 38% (n = 100/266) contemplating leaving the profession. CONCLUSION: Oncology professionals continue to face increased job demands. There is now significant concern regarding potential attrition in the oncology workforce. National and international stakeholders must act immediately and work closely with oncology professionals to draw up future-proof recovery plans.

The future of the oncology workforce since COVID-19: Results of the ESMO Resilience Task Force survey series

Background: The ESMO Resilience Task Force has investigated wellbeing since COVID-19 in relation to work, lifestyle and support factors in oncology professionals globally. We reported on the significant impact of the initial surge of the pandemic on wellbeing and job performance (Banerjee et al. 2021). As the pandemic continues, it is imperative to understand experiences and concerns to better inform support measures for the oncology workforce. Methods: Three anonymous online surveys were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic (S1, Apr/May 2020;S2, Jul/Aug 2020;S3, Feb/Mar 2021). Longitudinal analysis of responses at these timepoints were conducted. Here, we present responses to questions on job demands and resources, and perceived job performance since COVID-19 (JP-CV). Results: We analysed 3894 individual responses (S1, n=1520;S2, n=942;S3, n=1432): 53% (n=1961/3731) female, 45% (n=1679/3731) =/<40 years, 31% (n=1132/3692) non-white ethnicity, >100 countries. There has been significant increases from S1 to S3 (p<0.001) in feeling overwhelmed with workload (29% vs 45%);COVID-19-related clinical (14% vs 58%) and research (16% vs 64%) work;out-of-hours work (16% vs 41%), shift work (12% vs 26%) and overall working hours (17% vs 47%);and inadequate time for personal/family life (35% vs 45%). 59% (n=1156/1946) were unable to take allocated annual leave. While JP-CV has improved (34% vs 49%, p<0.001), there remained concerns about the negative impact of the pandemic on career development/training (43%), job security (37%) and international fellowship opportunities (76%). Overall, less than half had felt supported by their work management, professional societies or government, and/or had access to wellbeing support services. 25% (n=266/1086) were considering changing their future career with 38% (n=100/266) contemplating leaving the profession. Conclusions: Since COVID-19, oncology professionals have reported increased job demands, concerns over career development/training and job security, and inadequate time for personal life. There is a real threat of potential attrition in the current workforce. National and international stakeholders must act together to ensure robust recovery plans as we emerge from the COVID-19 crisis. Legal entity responsible for the study: The authors. Funding: ESMO. Disclosure: K.H.J. Lim: Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker, Speaker honorarium: Janssen;Non-Financial Interests, Officer, Trainees committee representative for the North West deanery: Royal College of Physicians (UK);Non-Financial Interests, Officer, Trainees representative at the RCP Patient Safety Committee: Royal College of Physicians (UK);Non-Financial Interests, Officer, ACP representative at the RCP Student and Foundation Doctor Network (SFDN): Royal College of Physicians (UK);Non-Financial Interests, Officer, Trainees committee member: Association of Cancer Physicians (ACP) UK;Non-Financial Interests, Officer, Young Oncologists Committee (YOC): ESMO;Non-Financial Interests, Officer, Resilience Task Force (RTF): ESMO;Other, Currently funded by Wellcome-Imperial 4i Clinical Research Fellowship: Wellcome Trust. K. Punie: Other, Institutional, Other, institution received speaker fees or honoraria for consultancy/advisory roles: AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Medscape, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Hoffmann La Roche, Mundi Pharma, PharmaMar, Teva, Vifor Pharma;Other, Institutional, Research Grant: Sanofi;Other, Personal, Other, Travel support: AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar and Roche. C. Oing: Other, Personal, Other, research funding and honoraria: Roche;Other, Personal, Other, travel grant and honoraria: Medac Pharma and Ipsen Pharma;Other, Personal, Other, travel grant: PharmaMar. E. Elez: Other, Personal, Other, personal fees: Hoffman La - Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Servier, Amgen, Merck Serono, ArrayBiopharma, Sanof. T.M.S. Amaral: Other, Personal, Other, personal fees: Pierre Fabre and CeCaVa;Other, Personal, Other, personal fees and travel grants: BMS;Other, Perso al, Other, grants, personal fees and travel grants: Novartis;Other, Personal, Other, grants: Neracare, Sanofi and SkylineDx. P. Garrido Lopez: Other, Personal, Other, personal fees: Roche, MSD, BMS, Boerhinger-Ingelheim, Pfizer, AbbVie, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Blueprint Medicines, Takeda, Gilead, and ROVI. M. Lambertini: Other, Personal, Other, Consultant: Roche, AstraZeneca, Lilly and Novartis;Other, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Theramex, Roche, Novartis, Takeda, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Lilly. C.B. Westphalen: Other, Personal, Other, honoraria, travel support and advisory board: Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Roche, Servier, Shire/Baxalta, RedHil, and Taiho;Other, Personal, Other, speaker honoraria: Ipsen;Other, Personal, Advisory Board: GSK, Sirtex, and Rafael. J.B.A.G. Haanen: Other, Personal, Advisory Role, personal fees for advisory role: Neogene Tx;Other, Institutional, Other, grants and fees paid to institution: BMS, MSD, Novartis, BioNTech, Amgen;Other, Institutional, Other, fees paid to institution: Achilles Tx, GSK, Immunocore, Ipsen, Merck Serono, Molecular Partners, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Third Rock Ventures, Vaximm. C. Hardy: Other, Personal, Other, Director of a private company Hardy People Ltd.: Hardy People Ltd. S. Banerjee: Other, Institutional, Research Grant: AstraZeneca, Tesaro and GSK;Other, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, GSK, Clovis, Genmab, Merck Serono, Mersana, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, and Tesaro. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Identifying and preventing burnout in young oncologists, an overwhelming challenge in the COVID-19 era: a study of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM).

BACKGROUND: Young oncologists are at particular risk of professional burnout, and this could have a significant impact on their health and care of their patients. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has forced rapid changes in professionals' jobs and training, with the consequent physical and psychological effects. We aimed to characterize burnout levels and determinants in young oncologists, and the effects of the pandemic on their training and health. METHODS: Two online surveys were conducted among oncology residents and young oncology specialists in Spain. The first addressed professional burnout and its determinants before the COVID-19 pandemic, while the second analyzed the impact of the pandemic on health care organization, training, and physical and psychological health in the same population. RESULTS: In total, 243 respondents completed the first survey, and 263 the second; 25.1% reported significant levels of professional burnout. Burnout was more common among medical oncology residents (28.2%), mainly in their second year of training. It was significantly associated with a poor work-life balance, inadequate vacation time, and the burnout score. Nearly three-quarters of respondents (72%) were reassigned to COVID-19 care and 84.3% of residents missed part of their training rotations. Overall, 17.2% of this population reported that they had contracted COVID-19, 37.3% had scores indicating anxiety, and 30.4% moderate to severe depression. Almost a quarter of young oncologists (23.3%) had doubts about their medical vocation. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout affects a considerable number of young oncologists. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on causes of burnout, making it even more necessary to periodically monitor it to define appropriate detection and prevention strategies.