Letendre, Louis

Abstract Abstract 1040 Introduction: Hemophagocytic syndrome (HPS) is a rare disorder characterized by fever, splenomegaly, cytopenias, hypofibrinogenemia, hyperferritinemia and hemophagocytosis in the bone marrow or lymph nodes. It is caused by pathologic activation of the immune system, and manifests clinically with signs and symptoms related to extreme inflammation. Primary HPS or familial hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) occurs predominantly in children (<18 years) due to inherited defects in natural killer and cytotoxic T-cell function. Secondary HPS generally occurs in adults (>18 years) and is precipitated by autoimmune disorders, malignancy and a variety of infections. The results of HLH-94 trial, the largest prospective study in pediatric patients with HLH, reported an estimated 5-year survival of 54%. There is a paucity of information about HPS in adult patients. Methods: Records of all adult (≥ 18 years) patients with a diagnosis of “hemophagocytosis“ or “hemophagocytic syndrome” presenting from January 1996 through December 2011 at Mayo Clinic were reviewed. Our hematopathology database was also analyzed for patients bearing a diagnosis of HPS. Out of a total of 127 patients identified in the database, 50 adult patients were diagnosed to have HPS as per the diagnostic criteria of the HLH-1994 trial (for patients seen prior to 2004), and HLH-2004 trial (for patients seen after 2004). This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Mayo Clinic. Results: Baseline characteristics of all patients are shown in Table 1. The median time to diagnosis from the onset of symptoms was 38 days (4–158 days). Secondary HPS was diagnosed in 46 (92%) patients. The causes of secondary HPS are shown in Table 2. Twenty (40%) patients were treated with etoposide containing regimen, 26 (52%) were treated with therapeutic agents directed specifically to the underlying precipitating disease, and 4 (8%) patients did not receive any treatment. No patient in our study underwent a stem cell transplant (SCT). After a median follow-up of 43 months, 36 (72%) patients have died. The causes of death were infection (47%), malignancy (42%), bleeding (8%) and unknown (3%). The median overall survival (OS) for the entire cohort was 1.5 months (95% CI, 0.7–4.5 months). The median OS for patients with malignancy- related HPS was 0.8 months (95% CI, 0.4–2.4 months) compared to 11 months (95% CI, 0.7-not reached) for patients with non-malignancy related HPS (p-value:0.006; Figure). On univariableanalysis, factors associated with a worse survival were serum albumin <2 g/dL (hazard ratio, 8.3), malignancy-related HPS (hazard ratio, 7.3) and serum creatinine >1.3 mg/dL (hazard ratio, 3.8). Conclusion: In this large series of adult HPS patients treated at a single tertiary care center, most cases are secondary, and are associated with a worse survival compared to historical outcomes reported for children enrolled on the HLH-94 trial. This is likely related to a marked delay in referral to our institution, and high early mortality precluding consideration of SCT. Adult patients with malignancy- related HPS in this study had a markedly inferior outcome compared to patients with non-malignancy related HPS. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Erdheim-Chester Disease (ECD) is a rare hematologic disease manifesting as granulomatous or fibrotic infiltration of long bones and non-skeletal tissues by non-Langerhans foamy histiocytic (CD68+, CD1a-, S100-) cells. The clinical presentation can be diverse and any organ can be affected. It is estimated that less than 500 cases have been reported in the literature. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients evaluated at Mayo Clinic from January 2001 to May 2014. A tissue biopsy review by pathologists at Mayo Clinic was necessary for inclusion in the study. In all cases, the diagnosis of ECD was confirmed using clinical criteria in conjunction with histopathologic findings. Clinical data such as patient characteristics, disease presentation, management strategies, treatment responses, and survival time were collected. RESULTS: Forty-five patients with confirmed ECD were included in our study. The median age at diagnosis was 53 years (range, 32-78), while the median age of onset of symptoms prior to diagnosis was 24 months (range, 1-180). There was a male predilection with a male to female ratio of 2.4. The duration of follow-up ranged from 1-168 months (median, 20). At the time of last follow-up, 38 patients were alive and 5 were dead, while the vital statuses of 2 patients were unknown. The median and mean survival times from the time of diagnosis were 150 and 130 months respectively. The median survival time from the time of symptom onset was not reached and mean time was 154 months (Figures 1A and 1B). Bone pain was the most common presenting symptom (27%). Other common presentations included diabetes insipidus (24%), abdominal pain (22%), B symptoms (13%), visual changes (13%), renal failure/obstruction (11%), pleural effusion (9%), other neurologic symptoms (9%), ataxia (7%), pericardial effusion (7%), edema (7%), dyspnea (7%), and hypertension (7%). The organs/sites involved were bone (80%), central nervous system (59%), kidneys (56%), lungs (38%), retroperitoneum (33%), heart (22%), sinuses (22%), bone marrow (14%), adrenal glands (13%), liver (11%), spleen (11%), and skin (16%). Only 18 (40%) patients had the diagnosis established by the first biopsy. The rest required multiple biopsies before the diagnosis was confirmed (median, 2; range, 1-5). Testing for BRAF V600Ewas performed in 12 patients and 8 (67%) tested positive for the mutation. Eight patients have not required ECD-specific treatment so far. Of the 37 patients who required treatment, the median number of treatments received was 2 (range, 1-7). The systemic treatments received and their response rates are summarized in Table 1. Four patients received radiotherapy but none responded. At the time of the last follow up, 5 patients with BRAFV600E were receiving treatment with vemurafenib or dabrafenib. However, follow-up is insufficient for proper assessment of response. CONCLUSIONS: ECD is an extremely rare diagnosis as exemplified in our retrospective analysis. The diagnosis is often challenging due to protean and diverse clinical presentation as well as frequent inconclusive initial biopsies. There is usually a long-latency period of smoldering symptoms leading to definitive diagnosis. A high level of suspicion is essential in order to make the diagnosis and BRAFmutation analysis should be considered an integral part of work up even if biopsy is non-diagnostic. Traditional oncologic systemic therapies and even novel rheumatologic anti-inflammatory agents generally have limited objective activity. BRAF inhibitors offer a novel treatment option and results of prospective studies are eagerly awaited. Abstract 1405. Table 1: Summary of Response to Various Treatment Modalities in Patients with ECD Therapeutic Agent Number of Patients Treated Response (%) Complete Response Partial Response Stable Disease No response Corticosteroids 11 0 0 9 91 Methotrexate 9 0 0 11 89 Cyclophosphamide 4 0 0 25 75 2-CDA 12 8 17 25 50 Interferon-α 8 0 29 14 57 Vinorelbine 4 0 50 0 50 Tumor necrosis-α factor Inhibitors 7 0 0 14 86 Interleukin-1 Receptor Antagonists 6 17 17 0 67 Tamoxifen 2 0 50 0 50 Radiotherapy 4 0 0 0 100 Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Off Label Use: We report among all treatments utilized at our institution for ECD including the use of steroids, immunosupressants, TNF blockers, interleukin-1 receptor antagonists, and BRAF inhibitors in patients with Erdheim Chester Disease. These treatments, though supported by other reports in the literature, have not been explicitly approved by the FDA for ECD..

SummaryAs invasive mucormycosis (IM) numbers rise, clinicians suspect prior voriconazole worsens IM incidence and severity, and believe combination anti‐fungal therapy improves IM survival. To compare the cumulative incidence (CI), severity and mortality of IM in eras immediately before and after the commercial availability of voriconazole all IM cases from 1995 to 2011 were analysed across four risk‐groups (hematologic/oncologic malignancy (H/O), stem cell transplantation (SCT), solid organ transplantation (SOT) and other), and two eras, E1 (1995–2003) and E2, (2004–2011). Of 101 IM cases, (79 proven, 22 probable): 30 were in E1 (3.3/year) and 71 in E2 (8.9/year). Between eras, the proportion with H/O or SCT rose from 47% to 73%, while ‘other’ dropped from 33% to 11% (P = 0.036). Between eras, the CI of IM did not significantly increase in SCT (P = 0.27) or SOT (P = 0.30), and patterns of anatomic location (P = 0.122) and surgical debridement (P = 0.200) were similar. Significantly more patients received amphotericin‐echinocandin combination therapy in E2 (31% vs. 5%, P = 0.01); however, 90‐day survival did not improve (54% vs. 59%, P = 0.67). Since 2003, the rise of IM reflects increasing numbers at risk, not prior use of voriconazole. Frequent combination of anti‐fungal therapy has not improved survival.

In childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), a rapid decline of circulating leukemic blasts in response to induction chemotherapy or prednisone is one of the most important prognostic factors, not only for achieving remission but also for relapse-free survival (RFS). However, in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) parameters of chemosensitivity have been restricted mainly to the rapidity of achievement of complete remission (CR) or the assessment of residual leukemic bone marrow blasts during aplasia. We hypothesized that the time to circulating peripheral blood blast clearance, as a potential surrogate for in vivo chemosensitivity, would have prognostic relevance in AML also. In a retrospective analysis of a cohort of 86 adult patients with AML receiving uniform induction and consolidation chemotherapy, we demonstrate that the time to clearance of circulating blasts during induction chemotherapy is an independent prognostic marker of RFS, superseding other known or established risk factors, including karyotype and number of inductions to achieve CR.