Garcia, Sandra

Hepatorenal syndrome-acute kidney injury (HRS-AKI) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. While liver transplantation is the definitive treatment, continuous terlipressin infusion for HRS-AKI may provide benefit and, as such, was assessed in a population composed of candidates for liver transplant (LT). Fifty hospitalized LT-eligible patients with HRS-AKI received a single bolus followed by continuous terlipressin infusion. Acute-on-chronic liver failure grade 3, serum creatinine (SCr)>5.0 mg/dL, or Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) ≥35 were exclusions. Fifty hospitalized patients who received midodrine and octreotide or norepinephrine for HRS-AKI served as a historical comparator cohort. Complete response (CR) was defined as a ≥30% decrease in SCr with end-of-treatment (EOT) SCr≤1.5, partial response as a ≥30% decrease in SCr with EOT SCr>1.5, and nonresponse as a <30% decrease in SCr. CR rate was significantly higher in the terlipressin cohort compared to the historical cohort (64% vs. 16%, p<0.001). Survival, while numerically higher in those who received terlipressin, was statistically similar (D30: 94% vs. 82%, p=0.12; D90: 78% vs. 68%, p=0.37). Renal replacement therapy (RRT) was more common among terlipressin NR than CR and PR (70% vs. 3% vs. 13%, p < 0.001). EOT MELD and SCr were significantly lower within terlipressin cohort (MELD: 19 vs. 25, SCr: 1.4 vs. 2.1 mg/dL, p<0.001). Sixteen of 40 terlipressin-treated patients received LT-alone (terlipressin CR in 10/16). One patient on terlipressin had a hypoxic respiratory failure that responded to diuretics; one possibly had drug-related rash. With continuous terlipressin infusion, a CR rate of 64% was observed with a favorable safety profile. Terlipressin use was associated with lower EOT MELD and SCr than the historical midodrine and octreotide/norepinephrine cohort; LT-alone was accomplished in a high proportion of complete terlipressin responders.

Abstract History of prior cancer is a widespread exclusion criterion in cancer trials. Up to 80% of NCI-sponsored and 80% of industry-sponsored lung cancer trials exclude patients with a prior cancer. We suspect this exclusion is commonly applied in other cancer trials, although no definitive data exist. Prior cancer is especially common among older patients and those with certain cancer types. Among patients >65 years, 15.1% overall have prior cancer. In Multiple Myeloma, the most common plasma cell disorder (PCD), prevalence of prior cancer is as high as 17.4%. Examining the prior cancer exclusion criterion is important because the number of US cancer survivors is large and rapidly growing. Arbitrarily excluding cancer survivors from trials is not evidence-based and exclusion presumably arises from assumptions that higher mortality of patients with prior cancer could hinder study conduct and bias trial outcomes. However, few data exist to support this assumption of higher mortality. In fact, we demonstrated that lung cancer patients with a prior cancer have similar or lower mortality risk, compared to those without prior cancer. In this abstract, we reviewed prior cancer related eligibility criteria in three of the most common PCD (Multiple Myeloma, Amyloidosis and Waldenström Macroglobulinemia) clinical trials sponsored or endorsed by 5 major Co-Operative groups in North America (Table 1). We use descriptive statistics (n, %) and Fisher's exact tests to describe characteristics of trials with and without exclusion criteria. Of 33 trials, 26 (79%) excluded patients with prior cancer as follows - active cancer (12%), within 2-3 years of PCD diagnosis (9%), or within 5 years of PCD diagnosis (55%). Many trials had exceptions to prior cancer exclusion. Specifically, 67% of trials allowed non-melanoma skin cancer, 58% allowed in-situ cervical cancer, 12% allowed early stage prostate cancer. Table 2 shows the association between clinical trial characteristics and prior cancer exclusion. There was no association between prior cancer exclusion and phase of study, transplant studies, or survival end point. Exclusion criteria varied across year of activation (p=0.01); for example, 75% of studies activated 1990-1999 excluded prior cancer, compared to 100% of studies activated after 2010. Type of PCD was marginally associated with exclusion criteria (p=0.08); 74% of Multiple Myeloma trials excluded patients with prior cancer compared to 100% of the Amyloidosis and Waldenström Macroglobulinemia trials. Conclusion: A substantial proportion of potential participants may be excluded from PCD clinical trials because of a history of prior cancer. This practice impacts accrual, generalizability, and fair access to cutting-edge treatments and the highest level of clinical care. As treatment outcomes for other cancers continue to improve, it is likely that the prevalence of multiple primary cancers will increase. This exclusion criterion is applied widely across studies, including more than two-thirds of those with non-survival endpoints. Our study is the first to examine the prevalence and potential impact of prior cancer exclusion in PCD clinical trials. Using population-based cancer registry data, we plan to undertake further research to understand the appropriateness and ramifications of this standard exclusion policy in PCD cancer trials. Disclosures Collins: Agios: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Devine:Kiadis Pharma: Consultancy. Usmani:Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics,Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Research Funding; Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Genmab, Merck, MundiPharma, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Anderson:Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Kumar:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.