Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Phase I/Ib trial shows targeted therapies improve safety and progression-free survival in metastatic colorectal cancer patients.
158 Background: PIK3CA mutations are common in CRC and may be a negative prognostic factor. INAVO is a potent and selective PI3Kα inhibitor that also promotes mut p110α degradation. BEV and CETUX are standard treatment (tx) components for RAS mut and RAS -wildtype (wt) mCRC, respectively. The Phase I/Ib INTRINSIC open-label umbrella study (NCT04929223) evaluates targeted therapies in biomarker-selected mCRC subpopulations. We report INAVO + BEV and INAVO + CETUX results. Methods: Patients (pts) with PIK3CA mut, RAS mut mCRC received INAVO (9 mg oral once daily) + BEV (intravenous [IV] 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks). Pts with PIK3CA mut, RAS wt mCRC received INAVO + CETUX (IV 400 mg/m 2 then 250 mg/m 2 weekly thereafter). Primary endpoint: confirmed objective response rate (cORR). Secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR), duration of response (DoR), and safety. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were exploratory. Results: At the clinical cut-off dates, 16 pts were enrolled in the BEV arm; 35, in the CETUX arm. Most had ≥2 metastatic sites at enrollment (n = 16 [100%] and 30 [85.8%], respectively) and ≥2 prior lines of metastatic therapy (16 [100%] and 28 [80.0%]). In the BEV arm, 3 pts (18.8%) had no prior BEV. In the CETUX arm, 25 pts (71.4%) had no prior CETUX; 17 (48.6%) had prior anti-EGFR therapy. All pts in the BEV arm and 34 in the CETUX arm were evaluated for efficacy and safety. Median follow-up was 9.4 months (mo; interquartile range: 5.5–14.4) and 12.6 mo (8.9–16.6), respectively. Efficacy is shown in the Table. All pts had adverse events (AEs); 15 (93.8%) and 34 (100%), respectively, had tx-related AEs (TRAEs); 5 (31.2%) and 12 (35.3%), grade 3–4 TRAEs; 2 (12.5%) and 11 (32.4%), serious AEs. One grade 5 AE (infusion-related reaction) occurred (CETUX arm). Dose reduction/interruption due to AEs occurred in 12 (75.0%) and 27 (79.4%) pts; tx withdrawal due to AEs, in 0 and 4 (11.8%) pts, respectively. Hyperglycemia was the most common AE, TRAE, and AE leading to dose reduction/interruption in both cohorts. Hypertension was observed more frequently with BEV; dermatitis acneiform and dry skin, with CETUX. Conclusions: INAVO + BEV and INAVO + CETUX showed encouraging efficacy in pts with PIK3CA mut mCRC, with no new or unexpected safety signals. Clinical trial information: NCT04929223 . INAVO + BEV(n = 16) INAVO + CETUX(n = 34) cORR, all PR, n (%) 1 (6.3) 7 (20.6)* SD, n (%) 10 (62.5) 17 (50.0) Progressive disease, n (%) 3 (18.8) 9 (26.5) Missing/NE, n (%) 2 (12.5) 1 (2.9) mDoR, mo (90% CI) 7.7 (NE) 4.4 (4.2–5.3) DCR, n (%) 11 (68.8) 15 (44.1) mPFS, mo (90% CI) 4.2 (2.8–6.8) 3.5 (2.8–4.4) mOS, mo (90% CI) 11.0 (8.5–14.5) 12.8 (10.7–13.8) CI, confidence interval; m, median; NE, not evaluable; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease. *3 pts with PRs received prior anti-EGFR therapy; 1 had a best prior response of SD (last dose 233 days before study tx) and 2 had best prior responses of PRs (last doses 134 and 171 days before study tx).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fakih et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: