INTRIGUE: A phase III, randomized, open-label study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ripretinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor previously treated with imatinib
Authors: Michael C. Heinrich, Robin Lewis Jones, Hans Gelderblom, Suzanne George, Patrick Schöffski, Margaret von Mehren, John Raymond Zalcberg, Yoon-Koo Kang, Albiruni Ryan Abdul Razak, Jonathan C. Trent, Steven Attia, Axel Le Cesne, Ying Su, Julie Nicole Meade, Tao Wang, Matthew L. Sherman, Rodrigo Ruiz-Soto, Jean-Yves Blay, Sebastian Bauer
Journal: Journal of Clinical Oncology (2022)

359881 Background: Sunitinib is approved for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) after imatinib failure. Ripretinib, a broad-spectrum KIT and PDGFRA switch-control tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is indicated for the treatment of adult patients (pts) with GIST who received prior treatment with 3 or more TKIs, including imatinib. We compared the efficacy and safety of ripretinib vs sunitinib in pts with advanced GIST who progressed on or were intolerant to imatinib. Methods: This multicenter, global, randomized, open-label phase 3 study (NCT03673501) enrolled adult pts with GIST who progressed on or had intolerance to imatinib. Pts were randomized 1:1 to ripretinib 150 mg once daily (QD) or sunitinib 50 mg QD (4 wks on/2 wks off). Randomization was stratified by KIT mutational status and imatinib intolerance. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiologic review (IRR) using modified RECIST version 1.1. Key secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) by IRR and overall survival (OS). Hierarchical testing was performed for primary and key secondary endpoints in a prespecified sequence; testing pts with a KIT exon 11 primary mutation (Ex11 intention-to-treat [ITT] population) preceded the all-patient (AP) ITT population. Data cutoff was 1 Sep 2021; final analyses of PFS and ORR and the first interim analysis of OS were conducted. Results: A total of 453 pts were randomized to ripretinib (n = 226; Ex11 ITT, n = 163) or sunitinib (n = 227; Ex11 ITT, n = 164). Median age was 60 yrs (range 18–88) and most pts were white (66.2%) males (62.0%). PFS was not statistically different between ripretinib and sunitinib in the Ex11 ITT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.88, 95% CI 0.66, 1.16; P = 0.36; median 8.3 vs 7.0 mos) or in the AP populations (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.82, 1.33; P = 0.72; median 8.0 vs 8.3 mos). ORR was numerically higher for ripretinib vs sunitinib in the Ex11 ITT (23.9% vs 14.6%; difference 9.3%, 95% CI 0.7, 17.8; nominal P = 0.03) and AP ITT populations (21.7% vs 17.6%; difference 4.2%, 95% CI −3.2, 11.5; nominal P = 0.27). OS data was highly immature; median OS was not reached in either arm. Fewer pts in the ripretinib arm experienced Grade 3-4 (G3-4) treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) vs sunitinib (41.3% vs 65.6%). Among G3-4 TEAEs with a difference ≥5% between arms, ripretinib had fewer events vs sunitinib (hypertension [8.5% vs 26.7%], palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia [1.3% vs 10.0%], neutropenia [0% vs 6.3%], and neutrophil count decreased [0% vs 7.2%]). Conclusions: The PFS in both arms was longer than PFS achieved by sunitinib in its pivotal phase 3 trial. While the PFS for ripretinib did not meet the primary endpoint of superiority vs sunitinib, meaningful clinical activity and fewer G3-4 TEAEs were observed in pts with advanced GIST treated with ripretinib after imatinib failure. Clinical trial information: NCT03673501.