Rosen, Steven T.

ABSTRACT Tumorigenesis and metastasis are frequently attributed to the intricate interplay between cancer cells and the tumor microenvironment (TME). Comprehending the mechanisms and key regulators of cancer‐immune crosstalk in the TME is imperative for developing efficacious immunotherapy. Through a series of in vivo CRISPR screens, we identified tumor‐intrinsic ITGB1 as a critical regulator of triple‐negative breast cancer (TNBC) development and deciphered its underlying mechanisms. Tumoral ITGB1 facilitated the establishment of pro‐tumorigenic TME by orchestrating tumor‐associated myeloid populations. Suppressing ITGB1 favored the enrichment of anti‐tumorigenic myeloid cells and enhanced infiltration of CD4 and CD8 T cells, culminating in superior antitumor effects. CRISPR scanning pinpointed a previously unrecognized functional domain essential for ITGB1's pro‐tumorigenic activity. This domain is distinct from all known ligand‐binding sites in ITGB1. An antibody capable of sterically blocking this domain significantly impaired TNBC progression. These findings position tumoral ITGB1 as a promising therapeutic target for reprogramming the TME from a pro‐ to an anti‐tumorigenic state, thereby effectively inhibiting TNBC development. Our study uncovers a novel mechanism of TNBC development and provides a unique therapeutic strategy for targeting ITGB1 in TNBC treatment.

Abstract Pseudouridine (Ψ) is the most prevalent RNA modification in human cells. Although Ψ was among the first post-transcriptional modifications discovered (1951), its biological functions remain poorly understood. More recently, Ψ was incorporated into COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, where it enhances RNA stability and reduces innate immune sensing. However, the precise roles of RNA Ψ in cancer, including leukemia, are largely unknown. Here, we identify RNA Pseudouridine Synthase D4 (RPUSD4) as a novel vulnerability in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) via directly catalyzing mitochondrial RNA (mt-RNA) Ψ formation. We further provide proof-of-concept evidence that targeting RPUSD4 suppresses leukemogenesis and stimulates anti-leukemia immunity. To investigate whether RNA Ψ dysregulation is involved in leukemia, we first compared RNA Ψ levels between primitive CD34+ cells (LSC-enriched) and CD34- bulk cells from multiple primary AML specimens. CD34+ AML cells exhibited significantly elevated RNA Ψ levels. We also examined Ψ levels across various RNA types in AML cells, identifying that mt-RNA contained much higher Ψ levels than other RNA types. These findings imply that RNA Ψ, particularly mt-RNA Ψ, may play a role in LSC biology and leukemogenesis. Further unbiased CRISPR screening revealed RPUSD4 as the most critical Ψ synthase for LSC maintenance. Large-scale transcriptomic and patient data analyses showed that RPUSD4 is highly expressed in AML specimens (P = 3.5 × 10-9), particularly within LSCs (P = 1.4 × 10-18). RPUSD4 knockout (KO) significantly suppressed AML proliferation, reduced mitochondrial OxPhos, and decreased LSC frequency in vitro and substantially delayed AML progression in vivo (MLL-r and FLT3ITD models). Of note, RPUSD4 KO-mediated anti-leukemia effects could be fully rescued by wild-type but not catalytically inactive RPUSD4 both in vitro and in vivo, demonstrating that Ψ synthase activity is essential for its function in leukemia. To profile RPUSD4-dependent Ψ sites, we applied two orthogonal technologies, direct nanopore sequencing and PRAISE sequencing (PMID: 36997645), both capable of detecting Ψ at single-base resolution. These approaches converged on a single RPUSD4-dependent Ψ at position 3,067 on mt-16S rRNA. This Ψ site is essential for maintaining rRNA stability. RPUSD4 KO induced mt-16S rRNA decay, thereby suppressing mitochondrial translation. This led to OxPhos inhibition, growth suppression, and LSC eradication in AML. Mechanistically, RPUSD4 is exclusively localized in mitochondria, where it directly interacts with the mt-RNA exonuclease PNPase. Under physiological conditions, PNPase resides within mitochondria and degrades mt-RNA to prevent accumulation of mitochondrial double-stranded RNA (mt-dsRNA). Upon RPUSD4 depletion, PNPase translocates from mitochondria to the cytosol, resulting in two major consequences: (i) mRNA decay:Cytosolic PNPase degrades mRNAs, particularly the nuclear-encoded mitochondrial mRNAs, such as DHODH(Dihydroorotate dehydrogenase). By retrogradely upregulating DHODH, RPUSD4 promotes de novo pyrimidine synthesis in AML. (ii) Aberrant mt-dsRNA accumulation: The buildup and cytoplasmic release of mt-dsRNA activates “viral mimicry” response that sensitizes AML cells to T cell cytotoxicity. Finally, to therapeutically target RPUSD4, we developed an RNA-based inhibitor, CpG-siRNARPUSD4, by conjugating a specific RPUSD4 siRNA to a Toll-like receptor (TLR9) ligand. CpG-siRNARPUSD4 is specifically internalized by TLR9+ cells, including AML cells, thereby maximizing selectivity and minimizing toxicity. Preclinical studies demonstrate that pharmacologically targeting RPUSD4 significantly prolonged survival across multiple AML models, including patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models, and rendered AML cells more susceptible to T cell–mediated cytotoxicity. Furthermore, the RPUSD4 inhibitor exhibited a promising synergistic effect with DHODH inhibitor in treating relapsed AML in vivo. For instance, in a representative relapsed PDX model, median survival times (in days) were: Ctrl – 28, RPUSD4 inhibitor – 36, DHODH inhibitor – 39, and combination – over 60. In conclusion, our findings uncover a previously unrecognized role of RPUSD4 and mt-RNA Ψ in leukemic metabolism, anti-leukemia immunity, and LSC maintenance. This study also bridges a critical knowledge gap regarding the role of RNA Ψ in leukemogenesis.

Introduction: HIV-associated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (HIV-DLBCL) is a significant complication in HIV-positive individuals, presenting unique clinical challenges and a poorer prognosis compared to patients with de novo DLBCL. Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) status is a critical factor influencing the pathogenesis, clinical behavior, and therapeutic responses in these lymphomas. Plasmablastic lymphomas (PBL) have shared some overlapping genomic abnormalities with HIV-DLBCL including MYC rearrangements. This study aims to elucidate the differences in the genetic profiles and pathway activations between EBV(+) and EBV(-) HIV-DLBCL through comprehensive genomic profiling. Methods: Cases of DLBCL were identified in patients living with HIV from a multi-institute cooperative group. Cases of Burkitt lymphoma and PBL were excluded. We performed whole exome sequencing (WES) on 106 tumors of HIV-DLBCL and RNA sequencing on 39 tumors and mapped the reads to hg38 reference genome using BWA and STAR, respectively. EBV status of cases was determined by in situ hybridization and/or reads mapped on EBV genome in sequencing data. Somatic mutations were identified using variant callers (Strelka2, Mutect2) with WES data. For those mutated genes in COSMIC, allele frequency cutoff was set at 0.03. Mutations with an artifact score larger than 0.7 in SOBDetector and those located in segmental duplications were further removed. They were annotated with Ensembl Variant Effect Predictor, manually checked, and plotted with maftools. RNAseq read counts aligned to each gene were obtained by featureCounts and DEseq2 was used for differential expression (DE) analysis between EBV positive and negative groups. Pathway analysis with the DE genes was performed using GSEA. FISH analysis was performed using MYC, BCL2, and BCL6 break-apart probes. Results: There were 41 cases of EBV(+) HIV-DLBCL and 65 cases of EBV(-) HIV-DLBCL. FISH of EBV(+) HIV-DLBCL identified 42% (3/7) with MYC rearrangement (MYCr), none with BCL2 rearrangements (BCL2r) (0/6), and 33% (2/6) positive for BCL6 rearrangement (BCL6r) with 1 tumor having a MYCr/BCL6r. For EBV(-) HIV-DLBCL, there were 35% with a MYCr (6/17), 18% with BCL2r (2/11), and 27% with a BCL6r (3/11) with 2 tumors with MYCr/BCL6r, and 1 tumor with MYCr/BCL2r/BCL6r. The most frequent mutations seen in EBV(+) HIV-DLBCL were STAT3 (32%), DDX3X (22%), and TP53 (15%). For EBV(-) HIV-DLBCL, the most frequent mutations were KMT2D (25%), TP53 (23%), GNA13 (22%), and TET2 (22%). Pathways that were most commonly associated with EBV(+) HIV-DLBCL were JAK/STAT (42%) (STAT3, JAK1) and NF-kB (39%)(DDX3X, TNFAIP3) while EBV(-) HIV-DLBCL was associated with epigenetic modifiers (62%)(KMT2D, TET2, EP300), JAK/STAT (45%)(SOCS1, JAK3) and PI3K/mTOR (40%)(GNA13, MTOR). Significant disparities between EBV(+) and EBV(-) were KMT2D (24% vs 50%, P=0.0025), TET2 (10% vs 26%, P=0.008), SOCS1 (29% vs 39%, P=0.04), DDX3X (15% vs 5%, P=0.03), and GNA13 (5% vs 24%, P=0.001). RAS mutations (KRAS, NRAS) were infrequent in HIV-DLBCL (EBV(+), 12%; EBV(-), 6%), in contrast to prior studies of PBL. Gene expression profiling showed enrichment of MYC targets, oxidative phosphorylation, and the mTORC pathway in EBV(+) as compared to EBV(-) HIV-DLBCL. Conclusion: EBV(+) HIV-DLBCL show a distinct mutational profile compared to EBV(-) HIV-DLBCL, with EBV(+) cases showing frequent mutations with STAT3 and DDX3X in contrast to EBV(-) cases with frequent mutations associated with epigenetic modification pathways (KMT2D, TET2). These genetic profiles underscore the need for tailored therapeutic approaches depending on EBV status. Although the analysis is limited and requires confirmation in a larger cohort, this is the largest study at present evaluating these tumors.

Background: Two National Cancer Institute-funded pharmacovigilance programs have identified 49 serious hematology-related ADRs since 1998. The programs, called RADAR (Research on Adverse Drug events and Reports) and then SONAR (Southern Network on Adverse Reactions) involve > 50 institutions and > 75 co-investigators worldwide. The work builds on three prior studies evaluating “Davids and Goliaths” in medical oncology and in cardiology (PLOS One, eClinicalMedicine, and Journal of Scientific and Professional Integrity). Here we review the hematology focused safety investigations of RADAR/SONAR. Methods: Data were based on initial safety signals being identified by a RADAR/SONAR co-investigator. Then, case-series were derived. Collaborations with basic scientists allowed for basic science correlative studies. Results were disseminated primarily as Brief Report in the literature and Black Box warnings on the related drug. In some instances, studies identified hematologic toxicities that prevent FDA from approving a submitted drug application. Results: sADRs were frequently identified based on very small case series, including ticlopidine-and clopidogrel associated thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (22 and 10 patients, respectively), thalidomide- and lenalidomide-associated venous thromboembolism (9 and 5 patients, respectively), rituximab-associated progressive multi-focal leukoencephalopathy (22 patients), peginesatide-associated fatal anaphylaxis (5 patients), and COVID-19 vaccine associated immune thrombocytopenia (1 patient). Meta-analyses provided data for epoetin- and darbepoetin-associated mortality among cancer patients and lenalidomide- and thalidomide-associated venous thromboembolism. Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, RADAR/SONAR investigated social media and pre-prints (COVID-19 vaccine associated cerebral vein thrombosis and immune thrombocytopenia). Time from FDA approval to sADR discovery was a median of 5 years (range, 0 months (thalidomide-associated venous thromboembolism) to 34 years (ciprofloxacin-associated neuropsychiatric toxicity). Basic science correlative studies identified ADAMTS13 autoantibodies (ticlopidine), leachates that developed in a multi-dose vial (peginesatide), anti-red blood cell antibodies (epoetin-associated pure red cell aplasia), and high-risk genes (fluoroquinolones and rituximab). Overall, RADAR/SONAR studies are estimated to have saved over 1 million lives and also resulted in overall payments to the Department of Justice of $1.5 billion (related to marketing of unsafe drugs). Discussion: RADAR/SONAR has proven to be a very important adjunct to FDA and pharmaceutical manufacturer-led safety investigations for hematology, paralleling the success in medical oncology and in cardiology. Going forward, independent centers of excellence for safety-focused investigations such as the CERSI network and the SENTINEL network (both are NIH funded) should be broadened to include a hematology-focused safety center.

Abstract Since the publication of the Revised European-American Classification of Lymphoid Neoplasms in 1994, subsequent updates of the classification of lymphoid neoplasms have been generated through iterative international efforts to achieve broad consensus among hematopathologists, geneticists, molecular scientists, and clinicians. Significant progress has recently been made in the characterization of malignancies of the immune system, with many new insights provided by genomic studies. They have led to this proposal. We have followed the same process that was successfully used for the third and fourth editions of the World Health Organization Classification of Hematologic Neoplasms. The definition, recommended studies, and criteria for the diagnosis of many entities have been extensively refined. Some categories considered provisional have now been upgraded to definite entities. Terminology for some diseases has been revised to adapt nomenclature to the current knowledge of their biology, but these modifications have been restricted to well-justified situations. Major findings from recent genomic studies have impacted the conceptual framework and diagnostic criteria for many disease entities. These changes will have an impact on optimal clinical management. The conclusions of this work are summarized in this report as the proposed International Consensus Classification of mature lymphoid, histiocytic, and dendritic cell tumors.

Introduction: Standard of care for patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (RR) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is salvage therapy (tx) followed by autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). However, most pts with high-risk RR HL will relapse after HCT. The AETHERA study demonstrated that post-HCT consolidation with brentuximab vedotin (BV) in high-risk HL pts improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared to placebo, particularly in pts with 2+ risk factors (Moskowitz, 2018). Pts with prior BV exposure were excluded from AETHERA, and BV is increasingly used prior to HCT in HL. PD1 blockade is effective in pts with RR HL and PD1 monotherapy as post-HCT consolidation in HL resulted in promising 18 mo PFS (Armand, 2019). Combined BV and nivolumab (Nivo) is a safe and effective salvage tx in HL, therefore we conducted a multicenter phase 2 study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of BV-Nivo post-HCT consolidation in high risk RR HL. Methods: After HCT, adult pts with high-risk HL defined as having ≥ 1 of the following modified AETHERA risk factors were eligible: primary refractory HL, relapse < 1 year of completing initial tx, extranodal disease (dz) at relapse, B symptoms (sx) at relapse, requiring > 1 salvage tx, not in CR at HCT. Prior BV or PD1 blockade were allowed if pts were not refractory. Pts underwent HCT according to institutional standards at the 5 centers. Starting between day 30-75 after HCT, pts received 1.8 mg/kg of BV and 3mg/kg nivo q21 days for a planned 8 cycles. If 1 drug was discontinued due to toxicity, the other could be continued. Investigators assessed response and progressive disease (PD) according to the 2014 Lugano classification. The primary endpoint was 18 mo PFS from study tx initiation. Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), safety, and the response rate in pts not in complete response (CR) at baseline. Results: 59 pts were enrolled and treated with at least one dose of study tx. Baseline characteristics are listed in Table 1. 18 (31%) pts were primary refractory, 35 (59%) had early relapse, 23 (39%) had extranodal dz and 14 (24%) had B sx at relapse, 15 (25%) received > 1 salvage tx before HCT, and 48 (81%) were in CR at HCT. 21 (36%) had 1 modified AETHERA risk factor, 23 (40%) had 2 and 14 (24%) had 3+ risk factors. The median follow-up time from study tx initiation was 15.7 months (range, 2.8-35.5). Patients initiated BV-nivo a median 54 days from HCT (range, 34-75) and received a median of 8 cycles (range, 1-8). 29 (49%) pts completed all 8 cycles of BV and nivo and 45 (76%) patients completed 8 cycles of one drug. 14 (24%) pts discontinued both BV and nivo early, including 6 for adverse events (AE), 6 pt withdrawals, 1 pt lost to follow-up, and 1 pt death from PJP pneumonia unrelated to study tx. BV was discontinued in 8 (14%) pts - due to grade (gr) 3 peripheral neuropathy (PN) in 2 pts, gr 2 PN in 2 pts, carpal tunnel syndrome in 1 pt, gastrointestinal AEs in 2 pts, and infusion related reaction in 1 pt. Nivo was discontinued in 7 (12%) pts - due to pneumonitis in 2 pts, and colitis, elevated bilirubin, abnormal transaminases, pneumonia with elevated creatinine, and hypotension with fever in 1 pt each. BV was dose reduced to 1.2mg/kg in 11 (19%) pts, 9 pts for PN, and 1 each for neutropenia and arthralgia. The most common AEs related to BV-Nivo consolidation were PN (51%, 3% gr 3), neutropenia (42%, 31% gr 3-4), fatigue (37%), diarrhea (29%, 3% gr 3), nausea (25%, 2% gr 3), arthralgia (24%), AST elevation (24%, 2% gr 3). The most frequent gr 3-4 AEs were neutropenia (31%), pneumonitis (7%), and ALT elevation (5%). Immune-related (ir) AEs requiring systemic corticosteroids occurred in 18 (31%) patients. Most common Gr 2 or higher irAEs included: pneumonitis (12%), AST or ALT elevation (8%), hypothyroidism (5%), and rash (3%). 6 pts were not in CR at baseline after HCT (all PR). 5 pts converted to CR with study tx and 1 pt remained in PR without PD. There were only 2 PFS events, 1 pt with relapse at 15 months and PJP-related death after prophylaxis was self-discontinued. The estimated 18 mo PFS and OS in all patients were 95% and 98%, respectively. The estimated 18 mo PFS in pts with 2+ and 3+ risk factors were 92% and 89%, respectively. Conclusions: Post-HCT consolidation with BV-Nivo in pts with high-risk RR HL is a promising approach, with only 1 relapse observed in our cohort with short follow-up thus far. Post-HCT BV-Nivo was tolerable, though IrAEs were observed more frequently than in the pre-HCT setting and PN and neutropenia were common. Disclosures Herrera: Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding. Nieto:Affimed: Consultancy, Other: Grant Support; Secura Bio: Other: Grant Support; Novartis: Other: Grant Support; Astra Zeneca: Other: Grant Support. Holmberg:Sanofi: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Millenium-Takeda: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties: Royalties; Janssen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Mei:Sanofi: Consultancy; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chen:Autolus Therapeutics: Current Employment. Rosen:Abbvie: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; NeoGenomics: Consultancy; Aileron Therapeutics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pebromene: Consultancy; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; paradigm Medical Communications: Speakers Bureau. Kwak:CJ Healthcare: Consultancy; Xeme Biopharma/Theratest: Other: equity; Sellas Life Sciences Grp: Consultancy; Enzychem Life Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Antigenics: Other: equity; InnoLifes, Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pepromene Bio: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion Healthcare: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion, Inc.: Consultancy. Feldman:Portola: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Trillium: Research Funding; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Viracta: Research Funding; Rhizen: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: Nivolumab is not FDA-approved for use as consolidation after autologous stem cell transplantation

Abstract Background: This is an initial report of a correlative laboratory study of an ECOG clinical trial, E2903, to investigate an array of prognostic factors that are potentially associated with the clinical outcome in previously treated, high risk Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) patients. The ultimate goal of this study is to develop a prognostic model for this group of patients. Method: We have previously reported (ASH, 2007) on initial clinical and toxicity results using a combination of PCR followed by Campath. To date we have clinical response data on 37 patients and have conducted correlative prognostic factor analysis on these patients at entry to the study. The prognostic parameters assessed were fluorescence interphase hybridization (FISH) panel, CD38, ZAP-70 and IGVH (mutated vs. unmutated) status and plasma levels of pro- and anti-angiogenic cytokines. In addition, features such as clinical stage, age, sex and laboratory parameters including total white blood count, absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) and beta 2 microglobulin (b2m) were studied as predictors of response to PCR. Results: As of July 2008, the response data for the first 41 (the accrual goal is 110) patients who started the induction treatment are available. Of these 41, 3 patients are ineligible and one patient had no response data. The median age was 63 (range 51–76) with 29 males and 8 females, median b2m was 4 (range 2–28), 11 (31%) were Rai stage 0–2, and 26 (69%) were Rai 3–4. The median number of prior treatments was 2 (range 1–5); 15 of 23 (65%) patients tested for IGVH were unmutated, while on FISH analysis 4 had del 6q, 8 had del 11q, 4 had del 17p and 30 patients had complex FISH defects (>1 defect). Despite the prevalence of high risk features in this cohort of patients, 17 out of 37 responded (best response=partial response), 18 were stable and 2 had progressive disease with an overall response rate of 46%. Prognostic parameters most strongly associated with a clinical response included CD38 negative (p=0.008), ZAP-70 negative status (p=0.01) and mutated status (p=0.03). Responses were independent of age, sex, b2m, ALC, number of prior therapy or FISH defects. Responders showed a prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared to the PFS of non-responders (i.e., 2-yr PFS 29% vs. 0%, respectively, p<0.0001). Prognostic parameters most strongly associated with PFS included being both ZAP-70 negative (p=0.0009) and CD38 negative (p=0.004). Also, ZAP-70 negative and CD38 negative status was a strong predictor of favorable PFS (p=0.002). Mutated status was borderline significant (p=0.07) in univariate analysis and there was no obvious correlation of baseline angiogenic cytokine plasma levels with PFS. These results also hold in a multivariable Cox model. In the Cox model, mutated status was significantly associated with PFS (HR=0.2, p=0.01). Conclusion: We believe that the PCR regimen is highly effective at inducing responses in previously treated relapsed or refractory CLL patients who carry high risk prognostic markers. Thus, while no CRs were seen all but 2 patients had a PR or were stable after 6 cycles of PCR. The prognostic parameters most strongly associated with predictors of clinical outcome appear to be ZAP-70, CD38 and mutation status. The ability to attain a response also appears to be important for achieving a prolonged PFS. In summary, we believe that the strong clinical activity of PCR in a high risk group of CLL patients provides more evidence for pursuing the regimen as a platform for other combinations. In addition, we have generated a first level prognostic model that will continue to be refined as we proceed to complete this trial.

Abstract Glucocorticoid (GC) is an effective anti-myeloma agent by directly inducing apoptosis and growth inhibition in myeloma cells. The anti-myeloma action of GC is mediated by its intracellular receptor, the glucocorticoid receptor (GR). The response to GC is variable among myeloma patients and resistance to glucocorticoid treatment develops almost invariably. The mechanism regulating glucocorticoid-sensitivity in not well understood, although it has been hypothesized that the regulation might occur at both the receptor (GR) and post-receptor level. In MM.1 myeloma cell lines, we observed significant down-regulation of GR expression as the cells develop GC-resistance, suggesting that GR expression level is an important determinant of GC-response. Here we present evidence that GR expression level directly correlates with the clinical outcome in myeloma patients who were treated with GC-containing regimens. First, using a quantitative real-time PCR analysis, we performed a retrospective analysis of GR gene expression on bone marrow plasma cell samples from 35 patients with newly diagnosed myeloma who were then treated on the ECOG study E1A00. This is a phase 3 trial which randomized patients to dexamethasone (dex) alone vs. dex in combination with thalidomide. Pre-treatment expression levels of GR-alpha, GR-beta and GR-P splicing isoforms were measured for 35 patients, of whom, 10 had post-treatment samples available. Interestingly, a large variation of the GR expression levels was observed across the patient samples, with the GR-alpha being the predominant isoform. However, a clear correlation between GR expression and treatment response was not seen, likely due to the small sample size. To access a larger patient pool, we retrospectively analyzed the GR expression levels using the cDNA microarray data from the Arkansas group on 351 newly diagnosed myeloma patients treated with Total Therapy 2, of which dexamethasone was an essential component throughout the treatment course. Of the 351 patients, both event-free (EFS) and overall survivals (OS) were compared between 49 patients (14%) with low levels of GR expression and the rest (86%) with high levels of GR expression. Strikingly, the cases with low levels of GR expression were associated with statistically significantly worse EFS and OS compared to those with high levels of GR expression, with the 5-year EFS of 20% vs. 52% and OS of 34% vs. 68%, P < 0.01. In summary, we have shown for the first time that the baseline level of glucocorticoid receptor expression in newly diagnosed myeloma patients predicts their clinical response to GC-containing regimen and the overall clinical outcome.

Abstract Introduction: Given the availability of several active treatment (tx) options for CLL, providers frequently make tx recommendations based on their interpretation of objective data from consensus criteria and clinical trials. There are limited data describing patient (pt) experience, values, and insights when encountering multiple tx choices. The CLL Society, a pt-driven, physician-curated nonprofit organization focused on the unmet needs of the CLL community, sought to explore how CLL pts make tx decisions. Methods: A 64 question survey was distributed online and in paper to CLL pts from Oct-Dec 2017. The survey was developed by CLL experts. The research was IRB-approved. Chi square was used for statistical comparison; all other analyses are descriptive in nature. Results: 1147 pts from 48 states completed the survey. Median age was 65 (range 28-86), 46% male, 96% Caucasian. Who Influences Tx: Of the 79% of pts who have seen a CLL expert, defined as a provider focused on CLL at an academic/research center, 95% rated their provider as very/extremely influential. 83% of pts rated their own opinions as influential, and 59% rated the opinion of a general hematologist/oncologist (gen heme/onc), a provider who sees a variety of cancer types, as influential. Only 27% let their provider unilaterally decide on tx. Of these pts, 19% trusted their provider to select the best tx and 5% didn't have enough understanding to be involved in the decision. 64% were influenced by outside sources of information, such as family members, live CLL support groups, or online sources including pt experts and forums. Factors in Deciding Tx: Of the 67% pts surveyed who have been treated, 73% were offered > 1 tx choice by their provider. In deciding on a specific tx, 94% of respondents stated that it was very/extremely important to know there were tx options beyond their current regimen. The most important factors in selecting tx were response rate (91%), overall survival (88%), progression-free survival (86%), long-term side effects (82%), ability to achieve undetectable MRD (80%), cost/insurance coverage (66%), and location of tx (50%) with significant differences between subgroups (Table 1). Tx was impacted by cost or insurance issues for 16% (n=104). Of these 104 pts, cost/insurance issues resulted in tx delay for 34 and change in tx plan for 24 pts. 16 pts reported that an appeal led to coverage and 16 pts received financial assistance. Pts' willingness to accept potentially curable but high-risk tx was heavily influenced by availability of alternate options. For example, 18% of pts would be willing to consider cytotoxic chemotherapy if alternate options were available vs. 72% if no options were available. Similar patterns were seen with CAR-T tx (28% vs. 79%) and bone marrow transplantation (BMT) (15% vs. 66%) with significant differences between subgroups (Table 2). 82% were willing to take a life-long tx for long-term control without potential for cure. Willingness to accept long-term tx was significantly higher in treated vs. untreated pts (84% vs. 77%, p=.006) and men vs. women (84% vs. 78%, p=.008). Clinical Trial Education: Of those treated by a gen heme/onc, 31% received no education on clinical trials. Only 15% reported good understanding of trial opportunities vs. 52% treated by a CLL expert (p<.001). 9% of pts treated by gen heme/onc were offered clinical trial participation vs. 47% treated by a CLL expert (p<0.001). Pts who declined or would have declined participation cited reasons including preference for "proven" tx (38%), distance from trial site (29%), fear (20%), frequent imaging (20%), overall lack of understanding about trials (15%), and lack of information (14%). Summary: Most respondents want to be and are involved in tx decisions. While providers are influential in decision making, CLL pts also rely on outside sources. Gender, age, and tx status influence which factors drive decision making. Pts select tx based on response rate, survival, side effects, and ability to achieve deep response and want a plan in place for sequencing tx. The majority are willing to consider long-term tx without cure. Few want chemotherapy, CAR-T, or BMT unless they have no other options. A significant opportunity for improvement in education on clinical trial opportunities was identified. This description of pt experience, values, and preferences enriches the informed consent process and may lead to more tailored and patient-centered care. Disclosures Kennard: AbbVie, Gilead, Verastem: Consultancy. Furman:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Genentech: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Pagel:Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Davids:Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Nabhan:Cardinal Health: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kay:Acerta: Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Siddiqi:Juno Therapeutics: Other: Steering committee. Brander:Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; BeiGene: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Acerta: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; DTRM: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding. Wierda:AbbVie, Inc: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Hill:Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cheson:AbbVie, Roche/Genentech, Pharmacyclics, Acerta, TG Therapeutics: Consultancy. Choi:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Rigel: Consultancy; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie, Inc: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Mato:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Prime Oncology: Honoraria; Portola: Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; Medscape: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding.

Abstract Purine nucleoside combination therapy, with and without immunotherapy has become the standard treatment approach to CLL. Past approaches, other than stem cell transplantation, have not been successful in curing the disease. Inherent resistance of CLL precursors, impaired immune surveillance (T-cells, NK cells) and microenvironmental abnormalities may all play a role in the ability to effectively eradicate leukemia. PCR has been successfully employed for previously treated (Lamanna 2006) and previously untreated (Kay 2007) patients with CLL. In addition, CA has been added to FCR (Wierda 2006) to treat relapsed/refractory CLL disease. We designed a study to evaluate PCR followed by CA for relapsed/refractory CLL. This ECOG study includes, in addition to response criteria, molecular correlates (FISH anomalies and CpG karyotype), risk parameters analysis, including CD38, ZAP-70 and IgVH mutational status. We assessed the baseline and sequential changes in the angiogenic status of patients by measuring plasma VEGF, bFGF, thrombospondin and their immune status via T-cell repertoire. From September 2004 to September 2006, 32 patients with relapsed/refractory CLL were enrolled in the protocol. The protocol combined 2 regimens (PCR and CA). Step 1, PCR, was planned for 6 monthly cycles. Steps 2 and 3 consisted of short term CA (4 weeks) or standard CA (18 weeks) depending upon Step 1 response. There were 3 ineligible, 1 not evaluated, and 28 evaluable patients. FISH anomalies revealed that 8 patients had a homozygous or heterozygous 13q-defect, 9 had complex FISH defects (more than one FISH anomaly), 5 patients had FISH anomalies that included del(17p13.1), 4 patients had FISH anomalies that included 6q-and 3 had FISH anomalies that included 11q-. CD38 was positive in 10 patients, 11 were ZAP-70 positive and 12 of 19 patients tested had unmutated type clones. The planned 6 cycles of Step 1 (PCR) was administered to 14/32 patients (44%), the others receiving 0–5 cycles. All responses were considered partial responses (11/29; 37.9%), with 2 patients (6.9%) demonstrating progressive disease. However, patients receiving the planned 6 cycles of PCR, achieved a partial response of 71% (10/14) with 2 cases of tumor lysis syndrome. Toxicity (Step 1-PCR) was predominately myelosuppressive (Grade 1–4). A case of chronic idiopathic polyneuropathy and a case of “paraneoplastic pemphigus” were reported. There were 4 deaths. CMV reactivation was diagnosed in 2 patients, neither of which was fatal. During Step 2 (CA), short-term administration in one patient led to grade 3 skin toxicity, which limited administration. During long-term administration of CA (PR, PD, SD) (n=7), infectious complications occurred in 6 patients all of whom developed grade 4 lymphopenia. The median survival for the entire group was 15 months. In conclusion, a significant number of heavily pre-treated and poor prognosis patients with CLL will respond to PCR. Further analysis will determine whether a significant number of patients will achieve a higher level of response and longer survival after CA administration. Studies of association of outcome with the risk parameters are ongoing and will be presented with the clinical response data.