Exploratory biomarker findings from cohort 2 of MODUL: An adaptable, phase 2, signal-seeking trial of fluoropyrimidine + bevacizumab ± atezolizumab maintenance therapy for BRAF<sup>wt</sup> metastatic colorectal cancer.
Authors: Josep Tabernero, Axel Grothey, Dirk Arnold, Michel Ducreux, Peter J. O'Dwyer, Maurizio Perdicchio, Alexander Abbas, Meghna Das Thakur, Natsumi Irahara, Anila Tahiri, Hans-Joachim Schmoll, Eric Van Cutsem
Journal: Journal of Clinical Oncology (2021)

3570 Background: MODUL is an adaptable, phase 2, signal-seeking trial testing novel agents as first-line therapy for predefined subgroups of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Previously reported findings demonstrated that adding atezolizumab to fluoropyrimidine (FP)/bevacizumab as first-line maintenance treatment after induction with FOLFOX + bevacizumab did not improve efficacy outcomes in BRAF wt mCRC. Given these efficacy results, exploratory assessments on tumour samples were conducted to provide insights into factors that might affect efficacy of maintenance treatment and provide guidance on appropriate therapeutic strategies for BRAF wt mCRC. Methods: In patients with BRAF wt tumours (Cohort 2), experimental treatment was FP/bevacizumab + atezolizumab. Primary efficacy endpoint: progression-free survival (PFS). Overall survival (OS) was a secondary endpoint. Archival tissue samples from 104 patients were analysed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) at HistoGeneX (PD-L1; CD8/GrB/FoxP3). SP142 antibody was used for PD-L1 IHC analysis, which evaluated PD-L1 low (IC 0–1) vs PD-L1 high (IC &gt; 1) in correlation with PFS and OS in the control and experimental arms. CD8/GrB/FoxP3 triplex staining was also performed to evaluate potential correlations with efficacy. Results: 445 patients with BRAF wt mCRC were randomised (2:1 ratio) to maintenance treatment in Cohort 2. Archival samples from 104 patients were analysed: FP/bevacizumab + atezolizumab (n = 82); FP/bevacizumab (n = 22). The biomarker evaluable population (BEP) for PD-L1 was n = 81 for FP/bevacizumab + atezolizumab [PD-L1 low n = 35 (43%); PD-L1 high n = 46 (57%)] and n = 22 for FP/bevacizumab [PD-L1 low n = 16 (72%); PD-L1 high n = 6 (28%)]. The BEP for CD8/GrB was n = 50 for FP/bevacizumab + atezolizumab and n = 16 for FP/bevacizumab. No difference in PFS or OS was observed in the FP/bevacizumab + atezolizumab vs FP/bevacizumab arms for PD-L1 high [PFS: HR = 1.5 (95% CI 0.45−4.8), p = 0.51; OS: HR = 1.3 (95% CI 0.38−4.1), p = 0.71] or PD-L1 low [PFS: HR = 0.92 (95% CI 0.47−1.8), p = 0.81; OS: HR = 0.78 (95% CI 0.4−1.5), p = 0.48]. Similar results were observed with CD8/GrB high [PFS: HR = 0.73 (95% CI 0.27−2.0), p = 0.55; OS: HR = 0.66 (95% CI 0.24−1.8), p = 0.44], CD8/GrB low [PFS: HR = 1.0 (95% CI 0.42–2.5), p = 0.96; OS: HR = 0.73 (95% CI 0.3–1.8), p = 0.5], FoxP3 high [PFS: HR = 0.97 (95% CI 0.37−2.5), p = 0.95; OS: HR = 0.95 (95% CI 0.36−2.5), p = 0.91] and FoxP3 low [PFS: HR = 0.73 (95% CI 0.29−1.9), p = 0.53; OS: HR = 0.5 (95% CI 0.19−1.3), p = 0.18]. Conclusions: These findings suggest that PD-L1, CD8/GrB and FoxP3 might not be predictive biomarkers in BRAF wt mCRC. Further analyses are needed to further evaluate potential predictive and prognostic factors of response in this setting. Clinical trial information: NCT02291289.