LIVE ASCO 2026 Live — KOL insights, hot abstracts & $TICKER finance buzz View Live Updates →
KOL Pulse — Trial Profile

PANGEA / PANGEA-2 Trial

Newly diagnosed advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA) — University of Chicago (academic investigator-initiated; PI Daniel V.T. Catenacci)

Newly diagnosed advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA)ASCO GI 2020 / Cancer Discovery 2021 / PANGEA-2 ongoing
Visit Interactive Trial Page →

Top KOLs Discussing PANGEA / PANGEA-2

Samer Al Hadidi, MD,MS,FACP
Samer Al Hadidi, MD,MS,FACP
@HadidiSamer
1.9K impressions
Richa Thakur, MD
Richa Thakur, MD
@RichaThakurMD
170 impressions
Bruno Paiva
Bruno Paiva
@BrunoPaiva_UNAV
159 impressions
Irene Ghobrial
Irene Ghobrial
@IrenemGhobrial
110 impressions
Taxiarchis Kourelis
Taxiarchis Kourelis
@Taxkourel
71 impressions

PANGEA / PANGEA-2 Key Slides & Visuals

Official trial slides and relevant visuals shared by KOLs at ASCO GI 2020 / Cancer Discovery 2021 / PANGEA-2 ongoing. Click any image to expand.

Richa Thakur, MD
Richa Thakur, MD @RichaThakurMD
PANGEA / PANGEA-2 Data
170 impressions · 2 likes · Dec 8, 2024
View on X ↗
[Slide 1] Mayo clinic model identified 3 risk factors for progression I - - My - annourmal - # Risk factors: 18th ANY Annual Newting # Non IgG subtype M-spike >1.5g/dL Abnormal free # Light chain ratio - N - = " " 20 year risk of progression: 5% (low risk), 21% (low-int), 37% (high-int) and 58% (high) with 0-3 risk factors, respectively Rajkumar a M. Mood 3005 Stanford University 66th ASH® Annual Meeting and Exposition --- [Slide 2] Pangea model Can be used for MGUS and Birth ASH Annual lisaning SMM Includes 4 variables Serum FLC ratio M-spike Creatinine Age Option of adding hemaglobin measurements over time Bone marrow biopsy optional Cower et M. LIMOR PAZA Stanford University 66th ASH® Annual Meeting and Exposition
Bruno Paiva
Bruno Paiva @BrunoPaiva_UNAV
PANGEA / PANGEA-2 Data
159 impressions · 3 likes · Dec 10, 2024
View on X ↗
[Slide 1] Acknowledgments Ghobrial lab & clinical research team, data science CHU team @DFCI LA Ligue ANGERS Ligue contre le cancer and the University Hospital of CONTRE LE CANCER CENTRE HOSPITALIER UNIVERSITAIRE Angers Our collaborators: NAVARRENUS UNIVERSITAS RSITAS Universidad UNIVERSITÄT HEIDELBERG de Navarra ZUKUNFT University College London (UK) SEIT 1386 University of Athens (Greece) University of Heidelberg (Germany) UCL National and Kapodistrian University of Navarra (Spain) UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS 12 Dana-Farber Cancer Institute --- [Slide 2] Static model Conclusion Detection of progression Tumor growth Next steps: Dynamic model Inclusion of new validation cohorts Early detection Validation of models integrating FISH results Time Take-home messages: Time We developed the PANGEA 2.0 trajectory model which will soon be available as an easy-to-use online calculator to predict progression risk in SMM By observing trajectories, PANGEA 2.0 can detect earlier patterns of progression and stratify patients more accurately Trained on >1000 patients and validated on >1000 patients in a multicenter cohort with longitudinal follow-up PANGEA 2.0 still performs robustly when prior results are unknown Dana-Farber Cancer Institute 11
Irene Ghobrial
Irene Ghobrial @IrenemGhobrial
PANGEA / PANGEA-2 Data
110 impressions · 2 likes · Dec 10, 2024
View on X ↗
[Slide 1] Risk Stratification of Smoldering in Multiple Improved Myeloma Using Trajectory Data A Multicenter Study in 2,203 Participants the PANGEA 2.0 Model: Floris Chabrun1234 Daniel Schwartz1+, Martin-Sanchez⁶, Susanna Rosalinda Termini⁶, Thomas Hielscher⁷, Annie Cowan1, Federico G El-Khoury¹, S Gentile1,5+, Tulika R Gupta¹, Jacqueline Perry1, Jean-Baptiste Alberge¹,², Ferrari1, Samuel Noelia Michael Freeman³, A Timonian¹, Robert Redd', David Cordas dos Santos¹, David J Lee1,2,8, Elizabeth Lightbody1,2, Hadley Barr¹, Priya Kaur1, Katelyn Downey1, Collado Gisbert5, Esperanza Vidhi Patel1, Patrick Costello¹, Catherine Tobia1, Romanos Sklavenitis-Pistofidis12, Habib Phan¹, Maya Patel¹, Jennifer Lamb1, Nana Ama Boadi-Acheampong¹, Selina J Chavda9, Louise Ainley⁹, Foteini Theodorakakou®, Sally Despina Fotiou¹⁰, Christine Ivy Liacos¹⁰, Nikolaos Kanellias¹⁰, Elizabeth K O'Donnell1,2, Catherine R Marinac1,2, Gad Getz¹⁸, Omar Nadeem12,8, Thomas Hielscher¹¹, Johannes Waldschmidt¹, Martin Kortüm¹¹, Marietou Binta Thiam12, Salomon Manier¹², Elias K Mai', Mareike Hampel, Marc Raab⁷, Niccolo Bolli13, Kwee Yong⁹, Efstathios Kastritis¹⁰, Meletios A Dimopoulos¹⁰, Jesus San Miguel⁶, Bruno Paiva⁵*, Lorenzo Trippa¹*, Irene M Ghobrial12* Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, The Broad Institute, Cambridge, MA, Laboratory of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University Hospital of Angers, University of Angers, Angers, France, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, University College London, London, UK, University of Athens, Athens, Greece, "University Hospital of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany, University Hospital of Lille, France, University of Milan, Milano, Italy December 9ª, 2024 Dana-Farber Cancer Institute 66th --- [Slide 2] Trajectory changes allow detecting earlier patterns of progression M-Protein FLC ratio BMPC% 2.0 60 21 1.9 18 40 1.8 15 1.7 20 1.6 12 1.5 0 9 Progression to MM Biomarker / risk score value Creatinine Hemoglobin Age No trajectory change detected 3.5 16 58 3.0 15 Trajectory change detected 2.5 14 57 2.0 13 56 1.5 12 1.0 11 55 PANGEA Traj. No BM PANGEA Traj. BM Rolling 20/2/20 2-year risk 2-year risk 2-year risk 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1 2 3 Dana-Farber Cancer Institute 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 6 Years since baseline visit 3 --- [Slide 3] >2000 patients followed for SMM using SLiM-CRAB criteria¹ Validation Cohort 3 Validation Cohort 2 Validation Cohort 1 Universidad Training Cohort UNIVERSITÄT de Navarra HEIDELBERG National and Kapodistrian ZUKUNF Dana-Farber UCL UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS SEIT 1386 Cancer Institute 240 447 485(105 & 380) 59 (25%) 1,031 140 (31%) cohort size (total: 2,203) 159 (33%) 231 (22%) 1.6 (0.7 2.7) rogressed to MM (total: 589) 3.4 (1.4 6.3) 2.4(0.7 5.7) 3.7 (1.8 7.1) 6.0 (4.0 2.7) llow up (years) 5.5 (3.4 8.5) 3.9 (3.0 6.2) erval between visits (months) 6.0 (3.7 7.6) 63.8(54.0 72.9) 60.0 (52.0 67.0) 66.0 (58.0 - 74.3) at initial diagnosis (years) 61.7 (53.3 69.0) 278/206 (58/42%) 196/122 (44/56%) 122/118 (51/49%) 504/527 (49/51%) (Female/Male) 26 (3%) 17 (4%) an back or African American 86 (8%) 19 (4%) 882 (86%) 429 (88%) 66th / ana-Farber Cancer Institute 1. Rajkumar et al. Lancet Oncol. 2014 Nov;15(12):e538-548. 4 --- [Slide 4] PANGEA 2.0 identifies patients at higher risk 20/2/20 PANGEA 2.0 BM 20/2/20 Risk Low Intermediate High PANGEA20 BM Risk Low intermediate High 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.75 0.75 Training cohort/BM Survival probability 0.50 Survival probability 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0 2 5 10 0 2 5 10 Time Time PANGEA 20 BM Risk Low Intermediate High 20/2/20 Risk Low intermediate High 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 Validation cohort 1/BM 0.75 0.75 Survival probability 0.50 0.25 Survival probability 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.00 0 2 5 10 0 Time 2 5 10 Time PANGEA 2.0 BM 2-year progression rate 20/2/20 Low Int. High Training cohort Low Int. 3.3% High 16.7% 59.4% Validation cohort 1 5.4% 20.7% 2.0% 7.8% 43.3% 66t 46.6% 1.1% 18.3% 26,7% 10
Samer Al Hadidi, MD,MS,FACP
PANGEA / PANGEA-2 Data
1.9K impressions · 9 likes · Nov 9, 2024
View on X ↗
OCR text not available for this slide. View the original post on X for context.

PANGEA / PANGEA-2 Top Tweets

Top tweets by impressions — click to view on X

About the PANGEA / PANGEA-2 Trial

PANGEA demonstrated that a prospective, serial biomarker-guided strategy of adding targeted antibodies to optimally sequenced chemotherapy outperforms historical controls in advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. 1-year OS 66-69% with PTS versus ~50% historical (P<0.001), mOS 15.7 months, ORR 74% at 1L. 37% baseline PT/MT biomarker discordance highlights the need for metastatic biopsy. Success merited larger PANGEA-2 trial. Paradigm for future platform trials in GI oncology. Landscape has since evolved with approvals in HER2+ (T-DXd DESTINY-Gastric02), claudin 18.2 (zolbetuximab), and FGFR2b (bemarituzumab-FORTITUDE-101).

Trial Methodology & Results

1-Year Overall Survival — Primary Endpoint (ITT, N=68 per protocol)

Median: 66 % 1-year OS (Cancer Discovery final) (Personalized Treatment Strategy (PTS)) vs. 50 % 1-year OS (Historical control). 1-year OS (Cancer Discovery 2021 final) rate: 66% (PTS) vs. 50% (historical control). 1L response rate rate: 74% (PTS). 1L disease control rate rate: 99% (PTS). Phase 2 platform trial (novel clinical expansion-platform type II design, survival primary endpoint). 80 patients enrolled (68 per-protocol ITT), 3 sites. Personalized Treatment Strategy: baseline biomarker profiling on primary + metastatic tumors + progression points (PD1, PD2), assigned antibody per prioritized algorithm (PTA). 1L FOLFOX + AN, 2L FOLFIRI + AN, 3L docetaxel + AN. 1L antibodies: HER2 amp → trastuzumab (n=16, 79% 1-yr OS); EGFR amp → ABT-806 (n=8, 75%); Immune (PDL1 CPS>10, MSI, TMB>15, EBV) → nivolumab (n=5, 75%); FGFR2 amp → none available (n=4, 50%); all-negative → ramucirumab (n=43, 75%). PT/MT discordance 37%. Met primary endpoint: 1-yr OS 69.4% (ASCO GI 2020) / 66% (Cancer Discovery final) vs. historical 50% (one-sided P<0.001 / P=0.0024). Median OS 15.7 months; median PFS 8.2 months.

✓ 1-yr OS 66-69% vs historical 50% (P<0.001)

📄 Source: KOL commentary on X →

Overall Survival (OS)

Median OS 15.7 months (95% CI 13.8-20.8) per primary analysis; 1-year OS 69.4% ITT (P<0.001 vs historical 50%). Median PFS 8.2 months at 1L; ORR 74% 1L. These outcomes SUPERIOR to historical controls. Warranted larger PANGEA-2 platform. Supports biomarker-guided mAb sequencing over static 1L paradigm. Therapeutic resistance observed in correlative analyses suggests dual targeted inhibition may be beneficial.


📄 Source →

Safety & Tolerability

Grade ≥3 adverse events: 32% (pts). Any Grade >3 toxicity through all 3 chemotherapy lines observed in 32% of patients. Safety profile consistent with sequenced chemo + targeted antibody combinations.

✓ 32% Grade >3 AEs across 3 sequenced chemo lines

📄 Source →

Clinical Implications

🔄 First successful biomarker-guided platform trial in GEA. PANGEA-2 larger Phase 3 warranted. PANGEA demonstrated that a prospective, serial biomarker-guided strategy of adding targeted antibodies to optimally sequenced chemotherapy outperforms historical controls in advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. 1-year OS 66-69% with PTS versus ~50% historical (P<0.001), mOS 15.7 months, ORR 74% at 1L. 37% baseline PT/MT biomarker discordance highlights the need for metastatic biopsy. Success merited larger PANGEA-2 trial. Paradigm for future platform trials in GI oncology. Landscape has since evolved with approvals in HER2+ (T-DXd DESTINY-Gastric02), claudin 18.2 (zolbetuximab), and FGFR2b (bemarituzumab-FORTITUDE-101).

PANGEA / PANGEA-2 in the News

Key KOL Sentiments — PANGEA / PANGEA-2