Szabó, Anikó

TPS7070 Background: Outcomes of adults with relapsed/refractory T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have remained poor. CD38 is a transmembrane glycoprotein with several important functions including its role in immune escape of tumor cells [Chillemi A et al. Front Immunol 2017, Furano A et al. J Immunol 1990]. Several studies have demonstrated that CD38 is expressed in T-ALL and AML and is targetable with CD38 blocking agents [Naik J et al. Haematologica 2019, Bride KL et al. Blood 2018, Tembhare et al. J Immunother Cancer 2020]. XmAb18968 is a novel CD38-CD3 bi-specific T-cell engager with Fc domain modified to minimize Fcγ receptor binding and non-selective T-cell activation resulting in reduced cytokine release without compromising target cell killing. We hypothesize that targeting CD38 in relapsed/refractory T-ALL and AML would be safe and feasible using XmAb18968. Methods: This is an investigator-sponsored multi-institutional phase I study evaluating the safety and tolerability of XmAb18968. Patients aged 18 years or above with relapsed/refractory T-ALL or AML (including measurable residual disease relapse), CD38 expression ≥ 20% by flow cytometry, and adequate organ function will be eligible. Major exclusion criteria are hematopoietic cell transplantation within 6 months of enrollment, active acute graft-versus-host disease, and acute promyelocytic leukemia. The primary objective is to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and toxicity profile of XmAb18968. The secondary objectives include determination of response rates, duration of response, survival and pharmacokinetics. Exploratory objectives include correlation of responses with genomic profile, characterizing changes in serum cytokines and phenotypic expression of activated T-cells and leukemic cells, correlation of the phenotypic expression with changes in the transcriptome at the single-cell level, proteomics evaluation of cytokine secretion at the single-cell level and correlation of response with N-glycan profiling, quantitative site-occupancy and direct glycopeptide analysis. The study will follow 3+3 design. Dose escalation will proceed in two separate groups: Group A for subjects with T-ALL and Group B for subjects with AML. Patients will be entered sequentially to each dose level [0.8mg cohort, 1mg cohort, 1.3mg cohort, 1.5mg cohort). The observation period for dose-escalation will be 28-days. RP2D will be defined as the highest dose level at which none of the 3 treated subjects, or no more than 1 of the 6 treated subjects’ experiences a dose limiting toxicity. A minimum of 24 and a maximum of 60 patients will be enrolled. The study is being conducted at 6 sites in United States and is currently open for enrollment. Clinical trial information: NCT05038644.

596 Background: Genomic alterations (GA) that drive cancer development and predict therapeutic response remain elusive in patients (pts) with KRAS WT PDAC. We interrogated our institutional database to identify actionable GAs in pts with metastatic, KRAS WT PDAC and analyzed the therapeutic impact of matched TT. Methods: We reviewed electronic medical records of KRAS WT PDAC pts (n=24) who underwent comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) utilizing Foundation One CDx (25.0%) or Tempus (75.0%) between 2015-2021. Duration of response (DOR) was calculated from date of treatment (Tx) initiation to Tx discontinuation. Overall survival (OS) was measured from the date of the diagnosis (Dx) of advanced disease (AD) to death or last follow-up. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, with at-risk periods left-truncated at the time of CGP. The effect of covariates on survival was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: Of the 24 KRAS WT pts, 14 (58%) had AD: 8 (57%) pts had metastatic disease at or shortly after Dx, 6 (43%) pts developed metachronous recurrence. Median age at Dx for pts with AD was 65, and 57% were female. Seven of 14 pts with AD (50%) had highly actionable GA (HAGA), (Table). Pts with HAGA demonstrated durable responses to TT (Table) with manageable toxicities. Pts with HAGA had a median OS of 28 mo compared to 5.9 mo for those without (Hazard Ratio = 0.47, p = 0.33). Conclusions: The sustained therapeutic benefit noted with TT matched to HAGA in pts with KRAS WT PDAC underscores the need for systematic interrogation of the somatic genome in PDAC pts. Optimal sequencing of cytotoxic therapy with TT and its impact on modulating clonal selection pressure in pts with KRAS WT PDAC merits prospective evaluation.[Table: see text]

191 Background: Somatic alterations in KRAS and BRAF have prognostic as well as predictive impact in pts with mCRC; however, the differential impact of various somatic alterations in these genes need further characterization. We analyzed the prognostic impact of specific somatic mutations in K RAS and BRAF in mCRC pts. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of pts with mCRC at our institution who underwent comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) utilizing the Foundation One assay. Prevalence of genetic alterations was estimated using proportions and compared between groups using a chi-squared test. Patients were followed for survival from metastatic diagnosis until death or last follow-up, with left truncation at the time of CGP. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to estimate overall survival, and groups were compared using a Cox-regression based likelihood ratio test. Results: 192 pts were identified - median age at diagnosis was 55 years, 62% (119/192) presented with metachronous metastatic disease, and 28% (54/192) had a rectal primary. Somatic mutations in KRAS were found in 49% (95/192) pts, and 53% (50/95) had a left sided primary (p = 0.3). Majority of the KRAS mutations localized to codon 12 (72/95 -76%), KRAS G12C comprised 12% (11/95). Median Overall Survival (mOS) of KRAS mutated pts was 3.0 years compared to 3.5 years for KRAS wild type (WT) pts (p = 0.5). Median OS of pts with different KRAS mutations were as follows: codon 12 mutations (excluding G12C) - 2.7 years; KRAS G12C – 5.2 years; non-codon 12 KRAS mutations - 4.8 years. BRAF mutations were identified in 7.8% (15/192) pts, and 67% (10/15) had a right sided primary (p = 0.062). BRAF V600E represented the most common alteration in BRAF – 87% (13/15). Patients with BRAF mutation had a mOS of 1.8 years compared to 3.1 years for BRAF WT pts (p = 0.2). Median OS of pts with different BRAF mutations were as follows: BRAF V600E – 1.8 years and BRAF non V600E - 2.1 years (p = 0.4). Conclusions: The numerically higher mOS in pts with KRAS G12C and non-codon 12 KRAS mutations merit further biologic characterization with functional assays. Individualized therapeutic strategies must be conceptualized for mCRC pts with specific RAS/BRAF mutations, considering their widely disparate prognosis and putative downstream signaling mechanisms. Dynamic molecular simulation to understand conformational changes in proteins associated with specific mutations will be pivotal to optimizing precision therapeutic strategies.

44 Background: Despite an alarming rise in incidence, data on survival outcome and treatment response of young-onset (age < 50 years) locally advanced rectal cancer (YO-LARC) patients receiving total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) are sparse. We retrospectively compared the outcome between YO-LARC and later-onset (aged 50 years or older) LARC (LO-LARC) patients treated with TNT. Methods: After the institutional review board approval, electronic medical records of the LARC (T3/T4 or node-positive) patients treated with TNT at a tertiary care cancer center between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2020, were reviewed for data collection. TNT consisted of systemic chemotherapy with oxaliplatin-based regimens for 16 weeks followed by long-course radiation with concurrent capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil (CRT). Patients receiving only preoperative CRT were excluded. Most patients underwent surgical resection following the TNT. Non-operative management was offered to patients if TNT resulted in clinical complete response (cCR). The following comparisons between the YO-LARC and the LO-LARC patients were performed: patient characteristics, pathological complete response (pCR) rate, combined pCR + cCR rate, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: Of 72 patients included in the analysis, 44(61%) were male, 49 (68%) were Caucasian, and 62 (86%) had clinical stage III disease. The study included 26 (36%) patients with YO-LARC (median age, 43 years) and 46 (64%) patients with LO-LARC (median age, 64 years). The comparison of patient characteristics that included gender, clinical stage, baseline carcinoembryonic antigen level, the distance of the tumor from the anal verge, presence of high-risk features, and histologic grade did not differ significantly between the groups. There were no statistically significant differences in pCR and combined pCR+cCR rates (p = 0.16) between the groups: YO-LARC, 12 % (3/26) and 15 % (4/26), respectively; LO-LARC, 22% (10/46) and 30% (14/46), respectively. Either group did not reach median DFS and OS after a median follow-up of 38 months for survivors. The estimated 5-year OS rates in patients with YO-LARC and LO-LARC were 86 % (95% confidence interval [CI], 69% to 100%) and 84% (95% CI, 68% to 100%), respectively (p = 0.92). The estimated 3-year DFS rates in patients with YO-LARC and LO-LARC were 67 % (95% CI, 50% to 89%) and 83% (95% CI, 72% to 95%), respectively (p = 0.19). Conclusions: The current retrospective analysis did not demonstrate significant differences in the pCR rates, combined pCR +cCR rates, DFS, or OS between the YO-LARC and LO-LARC patients treated with TNT.

Abstract Background: Outcomes of patients with relapsed/refractory AML (RR-AML) have remained poor. Therapy with venetoclax based combinations in this setting leads to CR/CRi rates of 21-49% (DiNardo CD et al. Am J Hematol 2018, Aldoss I et al. Haematologica 2018, Stahl M et al. Blood Adv 2020). Preclinical studies with BCL-2 inhibitors indicate potential mechanisms of drug resistance including overexpression of the anti-apoptotic protein MCL-1 (Konopleva et al. Cancer Cell. 2006). Pevonedistat is a first in class inhibitor of Nedd8 activating enzyme that induces the pro-apoptotic protein NOXA leading to neutralization of MCL-1 and apoptosis. Preclinical studies evaluating the combination of pevonedistat and venetoclax against AML cell lines have demonstrated a synergistic effect (Knorr KL et al. Cell Death Differ. 2015). Hence, we designed a phase I study to assess the safety and tolerability of adding pevonedistat to the combination of azacitidine and venetoclax in patients with RR-AML. Study design and methods: We conducted a phase I study with the combination of pevonedistat, venetoclax and azacitidine in patients with RR-AML. Patients aged 18 years or above with morphologically documented RR-AML, ECOG performance status 0-2 and adequate organ function were eligible. Major exclusion criteria were isolated extramedullary relapse, hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) within 100 days of enrollment, and active acute GVHD. Previous therapy with hypomethylating agents (HMA) or venetoclax was not an exclusion criterion. The dose escalation phase was conducted using 3+3 design. Treatment included azacitidine (75 mg/m 2 daily x 7 days), venetoclax (400 mg daily x 28 days), and pevonedistat in escalating doses (10-20 mg/m 2 IV days 1,3,5 of each cycle) with a cycle length of 28 days. Pevonedistat was given at 10 mg/m 2 dose in cohort 1, 15 mg/m 2 dose in cohort 2 and 20 mg/m 2 dose in cohort 3. The primary endpoint is to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and toxicity profile of pevonedistat, azacitidine and venetoclax. Other endpoints included determination of response rates, duration of response, survival, pharmacokinetics, correlation of response rates with AML genomic profile, correlation of pretreatment levels of BCL2, BCLXL, MCL1, BAX or BAK with response, determination of changes in NOXA (PMAIP1) mRNA and protein expression pre-and post-pevonedistat treatment, evaluation of BH3 mimetic profiling on bone marrow samples by flow cytometry and assessing the sensitivity of leukemia and leukemic stem/progenitor cells to pevonedistat ex vivo. Results: Thirteen patients participated in the dose escalation phase, 12 of whom were evaluable. Median age was 69 years (61-91), 30.8% had secondary/therapy related AML, 69.2% with adverse risk disease, 53.8% previously received venetoclax/HMA and 23.1% had relapse after prior allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) (Table 1). Seven patients were enrolled into cohort 1 (pevonedistat 10 mg/m 2 dose) of which one was not evaluable, three patients enrolled into cohort 2 (pevonedistat 15 mg/m 2 dose), and three patients enrolled into cohort 3 (pevonedistat 20 mg/m 2 dose). Grade 3 or higher AEs included febrile neutropenia (23%), infection (15%), anemia (38%), neutropenia (54%), thrombocytopenia (38%). There was 1 dose limiting toxicity (DLT) in cohort 1 (atrial fibrillation) that triggered cohort expansion. However, subsequent patients did not experience DLT despite planned dose escalation. Of the 12 evaluable total patients, CR/CRi was observed in 5 (41.6%) patients. Notably, patients with RR-AML who were venetoclax/HMA naïve had a CR/CRi 83.3% (5/6 patients). The response rates for each cohort are summarized in Table 2. Three of the five patients with CR/CRi (60%) achieved MRD negativity by flow cytometry. Four patients who achieved CR/CRi proceeded to allogeneic HCT after therapy. Median OS of the cohort was 5.4 months (1.8-14) and median OS was not reached in patients with CR/CRi. Conclusions: The addition of pevonedistat to venetoclax and azacitidine backbone is safe and well tolerated in patients with RR-AML. Dose escalation yielded encouraging efficacy in venetoclax/HMA naïve RR-AML patients. The study is currently in the dose expansion phase. Details on correlative studies examining mechanisms of therapeutic efficacy and resistance will be reported in the main meeting. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Guru Murthy: Cardinal health: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Other: Advisory board meeting; DAVA Oncology: Honoraria; CancerExpertNow: Honoraria; Qessential: Honoraria; Techspert: Consultancy; Curio Sciences: Honoraria; Guidepoint: Consultancy. Abedin: AltruBio: Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Pfizer: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria; Actinium: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma Inc.: Research Funding. Litzow: Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Pluristem: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Atallah: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy.

Abstract Background Primary bone diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a variant of extranodal non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) that is relatively rare, accounting for 3-15% of extranodal NHL and less than 1% of all NHL. Patients often present with pain and swelling or pathologic fracture of the affected area of the skeleton, and B symptoms are often less prevalent. Many cases are limited stage at presentation. Patients are usually treated with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) or similar induction therapy. Based on older studies showing improved outcomes associated with the addition of radiation (many completed prior to the rituximab era), patients often still receive combined-modality therapy today. However, it remains unknown whether consolidative radiation therapy (RT) confers additional benefit following rituximab-based chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) induction. We sought to address this question in a multicenter retrospective study. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of outcomes in a modern cohort of patients who underwent treatment for primary bone DLBCL using chemotherapy regimens in the rituximab era either with or without consolidative RT. Data was collected from 13 academic medical centers in the U.S., with patients treated between 2005 and 2019. Patients were identified using each institution's hematologic malignancy registries. Analysis was limited to patients with primary bone DLBCL, with stage I-II disease (primary site +/- locoregional lymph nodes) that could be encompassed in a radiation field. Patients who received CIT alone or CIT followed by RT were included. Treatment selection was at the treating physician's discretion. Electronic medical records were reviewed for: demographics, chemotherapy regimens, radiation treatments, and PET scan data. Local IRB approval was obtained at sites. All data was distributed in a de-identified fashion. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), and relapse-free survival (RFS). Secondary outcomes included: response after induction CIT induction and the need for additional therapies. Chi-square test analysis was used to compare categorical variables and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for continuous and ordinal measures. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between groups via the log-rank test. Multi-variable analysis (MVA) for OS and RFS was performed using RT vs no RT, PET status post CIT (negative vs positive) and rituximab in induction (Y/N) as variables. Results A total of 127 patients were included: 91 who received CIT and radiation (RT group), and 36 who received CIT alone (no RT group). The median age of patients at diagnosis in the RT group and no RT group was 58.5 and 57.0, respectively. For CIT, the majority of patients received R-CHOP (84%). Despite focusing on 2005-2019, a small percentage of patients (5 - 14%) in each group (RT and no RT) did not receive rituximab with their induction therapy. The OS at 10 years was 74.5% in the RT group and 86.5% in the no RT group (p = 0.29). The RFS at 10 years was 70.9% in the RT group and 78.2% in the no RT group (p = 0.85). Among the 91 patients who received RT, 67 (77.0%) received a dose of 36 Gy or higher. There was no difference in OS (p = 0.63) or RFS (p = 0.90) in patients who received &gt; 36 Gy vs &lt; 36 Gy of radiation. On MVA for OS, RT was not associated with improved OS, although rituximab as part of induction was (p = 0.048). On MVA for RFS, neither RT nor rituximab were associated with improved RFS. For rituximab the trend was in the direction of rituximab benefit (p = 0.11). Conclusion Our results demonstrate that, in the rituximab era, patients with limited stage primary bone DLBCL have excellent outcomes overall. In this study, neither RFS or OS appeared to be improved with the addition of consolidative RT. Rituximab, however, was associated with improved OS on MVA. Outcomes do not appear to differ based on the dose of RT (&gt; 36 Gy vs &lt; 36 Gy). Our data suggests that RT may have less benefit for primary bone DLBCL in the rituximab era, although it is possible that a subset of patients may benefit from consolidative radiation therapy. A larger data set would likely be needed to evaluate this. We plan to present data regarding PET responses at the meeting. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lunning: Acrotech: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb Co.: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Cashen: Secura Bio, ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Bartlett: Autolus: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seagen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Caimi: XaTek: Patents & Royalties: Royalties from patents (wife); Amgen Therapeutics.: Consultancy; ADC Theraputics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Rodgers: MJH Lifesciences: Consultancy. Barr: Morphosys: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Epperla: Verastem: Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Other: Ad Board; Genzyme: Honoraria. Hill: AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gentenech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte/Morphysis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Karmali: BMS/Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; EUSA: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Portell: Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Aptitude Health: Honoraria; Morphosys: Honoraria; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; SeaGen: Research Funding; BeiGene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Kite: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; VelosBio: Research Funding. Fenske: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Servier Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; KaryoPharm: Consultancy; CSL Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Biogen: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kite (Gilead): Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Outcomes of adults with relapsed/refractory T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia or lymphoma (T-ALL or T-LBL respectively) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have remained poor despite the availability of newer agents. CD38 is a 45 kDa transmembrane glycoprotein expressed by lymphoid and myeloid cells with several important functions including a role in immune escape from tumor cells [Chillemi A et al. Front Immunol 2017, Furano A et al. J Immunol 1990]. Several studies have demonstrated that CD38 is expressed in tumor cells of patients with T-ALL and AML and potentially targetable using CD38 blocking agents [Naik J et al. Haematologica 2019, Bride KL et al. Blood 2018, Tembhare et al. J Immunother Cancer 2020, Farber M et al. ASH 2018]. XmAb18968 is structurally distinct CD3-CD38 bi-specific T-cell engager with a full fragment crystallizable (Fc) domain modified to minimize Fcγ receptor binding and non-selective activation of T cells and other immune effector cells. XmAb18968 has optimized relative affinities for both CD3 and CD38 which results in reduced cytokine release without compromising target cell killing. We hypothesize targeting CD38 in relapsed/refractory- T-cell ALL/LBL and AML is safe and feasible using XmAb18968, a novel CD3-CD38 bispecific antibody. Study design and methods: This is an investigator-sponsored multi-institutional phase I study evaluating the safety and tolerability of XmAb18968. Patients aged 18 years or above with T-ALL, T-LBL or AML (including undifferentiated leukemia and bi phenotypic leukemia), in relapsed/refractory status (at least one line of prior therapy) including measurable residual disease relapse, CD38 expression ≥ 20%, and adequate organ function will be eligible. Major exclusion criteria are hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) within 6 months of enrollment, active acute GVHD, veno-occlusive disease, and acute promyelocytic leukemia. The study is planned to be conducted at 6 sites in United States. The primary endpoint is to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and toxicity profile of XmAb18968. The secondary endpoints include determination of response rates, duration of response, survival and pharmacokinetics. Exploratory endpoints include correlation of responses with genomic profile, assessment of serum cytokine response, identifying the changes in phenotypic expression of activated T-cells and leukemic cells, correlation of the phenotypic expression with changes in the transcriptome at the single-cell level, proteomics evaluation of cytokine secretion at the single-cell level and correlation of response with N-glycan profiling, quantitative site-occupancy and direct glycopeptide analysis. The study will follow 3+3 design for dose escalation and de-escalation in case of dose limiting toxicity (DLT). Dose escalation will proceed in two separate groups: Group A for subjects with T-ALL and T-LBL and Group B for subjects with AML. Patients will be entered sequentially to each dose level, starting with the first dose level. The DLT observation period for dose-escalation will be 28-days. RP2D will be defined as the highest dose level at which none of the first 3 treated subjects, or no more than 1 of the first 6 treated subjects experience a DLT. A minimum of 24 and a maximum of 60 patients will be needed for the dose escalation phase. Disclosures Guru Murthy: Curio Sciences: Honoraria; Techspert: Consultancy; Qessential: Honoraria; CancerExpertNow: Honoraria; DAVA Oncology: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Other: Advisory board meeting; Cardinal health: Honoraria; Guidepoint: Consultancy. Johnson: Miltenyi Biotec: Research Funding. Abedin: AltruBio: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Helsinn: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma Inc.: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding. Stock: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; amgen: Honoraria; agios: Honoraria; jazz: Honoraria; kura: Honoraria; kite: Honoraria; morphosys: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria; syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pluristeem: Consultancy, Honoraria. Shah: Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Expenses, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Expenses; Acrotech/Spectrum: Honoraria; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Expenses; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Expenses; Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Expenses; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Servier Genetics: Other; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Leonard: Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pratz: Agios: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Cellgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millenium: Research Funding; University of Pennsylvania: Current Employment; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Luger: Syros: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Brystol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Onconova: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Hoffman LaRoche: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding. Badar: Pfizer Hematology-Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Atallah: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding.

4136 Background: The genomic alterations which characterize PDAC holds great promise for novel therapeutic interventions. Constitutive signaling via mutated KRAS is considered the signature pathognomonic alteration in PDAC, less than 10% of patients (pts) have tumors which are KRAS wild type (WT). We retrospectively reviewed our institutional genomic database to characterize PDAC pts with KRAS WT tumors. Methods: We reviewed electronic medical records of PDAC pts who underwent comprehensive genomic profiling (CPG) utilizing Foundation One CDx (50.6%) or TEMPUS (49.4%) between 2015-2020. Demographic and disease characteristics were compared between cohorts using Wilcoxon rank-sum test or chi-square tests. Left truncation at the time of CGP was used to account for the time of entry into the study cohort. Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival curve estimation, and log-rank test was used for between-group comparison. Cox regression was used to adjust for confounders. Results: We identified 235 patients: median age at diagnosis was 65 years and 52% were male. Clinical stages at diagnosis were localized (resectable/borderline resectable), locally advanced, or metastatic in 105 (44.7%), 61 (26.0%), and 69 (29.4%) patients, respectively. KRAS status was mutated in 212 (90%) patients: the most common alterations being G12D (48%), G12V (28%) and G12R (14%). KRAS WT status was noted in 23 (9.8%) pts, actionable genomic alterations in this subgroup are summarized in the table. Baseline demographic and treatment characteristics were similar between patients with KRAS mutated and WT tumors. Of the 23 patients with KRAS WT tumors, 16 (69.6%) completed all planned curative intent therapy compared to 121 (57.3%) of the 212 KRAS mutated pts (p=0.26). Median Overall Survival of patients with KRAS mutated tumors was 18.6 months compared to 44.1 months for WT pts (p=0.03). Adjusting for stage, WT vs. mutated status was associated with a 62% decreased hazard of death (HR 0.38 [0.18-0.83]; p=0.016). Conclusions: Patients with KRAS WT PDAC appear to have a distinct biology compared to those with KRAS mutations, meriting exploration in larger data sets. Further, comprehensive whole genome or transcriptomic characterization of KRAS WT tumors is necessary to identify putative driver alterations as well as actionable therapeutic targets.[Table: see text]

431 Background: Patients (pts) with localized PC do not routinely undergo comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) unless they develop recurrent or metastatic disease. KRAS is the most frequently mutated gene in PC, however, the impact of different KRAS mutations in localized PC has not been well characterized. We interrogated our genomic database to analyze the KRAS status in PC pts who presented with localized disease at diagnosis (Dx). Methods: We identified PC pts at our institution who underwent CGP utilizing the Foundation One CDx assay and had localized disease at initial Dx; these pts were categorized into resectable/borderline resectable PC (LPC) and locally advanced PC (LAPC). All pts with LPC and LAPC underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiation prior to possible surgery (all intended therapy - AIT). Tissue from metastatic sites was used for CGP in pts who developed recurrent/metastatic disease before or after completion of AIT. The primary tumor was used for CGP in pts who completed AIT without subsequent relapse or in the absence of adequate metastatic tissue. Effect of each gene on response and survival outcomes was estimated using proportional odds and Cox regression analysis, respectively, adjusting for stage. Results: 75 pts were identified, median age at Dx was 65 years, 59% were male, 65% had a primary tumor in the pancreatic head. 38 (86%) pts with LPC completed AIT compared to 21 (68%) pts with LAPC (p<0.001). KRAS mutation was detected in 95% (71/75) of pts– 94% (67/71) in codon 12 and 6% (4/71) in codon 61. The various KRAS mutations and their association with completion of AIT is summarized in the table. The likelihood of completing AIT did not differ based on KRAS wildtype (WT) vs mutated status (p =1.00), the mutated codon (codon 12 vs. codon 61; p =1.00) or the individual KRAS point mutations (p = 0.7); however, all patients with G12A (N= 1), G12C (N=1), G12L (N=1) and G12R (N=11) mutations completed AIT. KRAS status (mutated vs. WT) and the individual KRAS mutations were not associated with overall survival (OS) after adjusting for stage (p= 0.13 and p = 0.26 respectively). Median OS for patients with LPC and LAPC, was 39 months (mos) and 29 mos respectively. Conclusions: KRAS status and individual KRAS mutations did not have an impact on completing AIT or mOS; however, these findings need to be interpreted with caution due to the inherent biases involved in such analyses. The clinical significance and functional relevance of KRAS G12A, G12C, G12L and G12R mutations, though relatively rare, needs further characterization as well as mechanistic elucidation. [Table: see text]

231 Background: Both peri-operative chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemoradiation have been shown to improve outcomes in patients (pts) with LA-GEJ CA compared to surgery alone. Rates of post-operative chemotherapy delivery remain suboptimal. Total neo-adjuvant therapy (TNT) in LA-GEJ CA - induction chemotherapy (IC) followed by concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) - may improve systematic delivery of neoadjuvant therapy and result in favorable clinical outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 135 pts with LA-GEJ CA at our institution between 2/2007 and 11/2019; pertinent clinical data were abstracted with Institutional Review Board approval. Patients treated with IC and curative-intent CRT with ≥40 Gy dose of radiation for adenocarcinoma were included in this analysis (N = 59). Doublet or triplet IC regimens utilizing 5-Flurouracil(5-FU), Cisplatin/Oxaliplatin and Docetaxel were commonly administered while combinations of Carboplatin +Paclitaxel or 5-FU + Oxaliplatin were used in CRT. Clinical complete response (CCR) was defined as metabolic imaging and endoscopic biopsies negative for residual malignancy after completion of TNT. Patients were followed from diagnosis to recurrence and overall survival. Survival probabilities were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between groups using a log-rank test. Results: Out of 59 evaluable pts, 69% were clinical stage T3, 71% were node positive. 37 pts (63%) underwent surgery, R0 resection rate was 89% (33/37), pathologic complete response (pCR) rate was 19% (7/37). Among the pts who did not undergo surgery, 41% (9/22) opted to forego surgery since they attained a CCR. For the entire cohort, median Disease-Free Survival (mDFS), median Overall Survival (mOS), and 3-yr OS were 2.4 yrs, 4.7 yrs, and 67% respectively. Pts who did not undergo surgery had a mDFS, mOS, and 3-yr OS of 1.5 yrs, 4.2 yrs, and 59% respectively. Median DFS, mOS, and 3-yr OS of patients who underwent surgery were 3.5 yrs, 5.8 yrs and 72% respectively. Patients who achieved a CCR and opted to forego surgery (N = 9) had a 3 -yr DFS of 42% vs 83% for pts (N = 7) who demonstrated a pCR after curative intent tri-modality therapy. (P = 0.0099) Interestingly, the same group that achieved CCR and opted out of surgery had 3yr OS of 89% vs 83% of those who demonstrated a pCR (p = 0.0042). Conclusions: TNT for pts with LA-GEJ CA is associated with high rates of R0 resection as well as excellent DFS and OS compared to historical controls, warranting prospective evaluation. The remarkable DFS and OS in patients who opted to forego surgery due to achieving CCR is reflective of the local and systemic control rendered by this approach. Careful characterization and close longitudinal follow-up of patients who achieve CCR may help identify a subgroup of LA-GEJ CA pts who may benefit from surgery sparing approaches.