Zheng, Hong

Abstract Background Lung adenocarcinoma in never-smokers is a major public health burden, especially among East Asian women. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) are promising for risk stratification but are primarily developed in European-ancestry populations. We aimed to develop and validate single- and multi-ancestry PRSs for East Asian never-smokers to improve lung adenocarcinoma risk prediction. Methods PRSs were developed using genome-wide association study summary statistics from East Asian (8002 cases; 20 782 controls) and European (2058 cases; 5575 controls) populations. Single-ancestry models included a PRS with 25 single nucleotide variants (PRS-25), PRS clumping and thresholding (CT), and LDpred2; multi-ancestry models included LDpred2 plus European PRS-128, PRS-CSx, and clumping and thresholding, super learning, empirical Bayes (CT-SLEB). Performance was evaluated in independent East Asian data from the Female Lung Cancer Consortium and externally validated in the Nanjing Lung Cancer Cohort. We assessed predictive accuracy via area under the curve operating procedure (AUC), with 10-year and (ages 30-80 years) absolute risks estimates. Results The best multi-ancestry PRS, using East Asian and European data via CT-SLEB, outperformed the best East Asian-only (LDpred2; AUC = 0.629, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.618 to 0.641), achieving an AUC of 0.640 (95% CI = 0.629 to 0.653) and odds ratio of 1.71 (95% CI = 1.61 to 1.82) per standard deviation increase. Nanjing Lung Cancer Cohort validation confirmed robust performance (AUC = 0.649, 95% CI = 0.623 to 0.676). The top 20% PRS group had a 3.92-fold higher lung adenocarcinoma risk than the bottom 20%. Further, the top 5% PRS group reached a 6.69% lifetime absolute risk. Notably, this group reached the average population 10-year lung adenocarcinoma risk at age 50 years (0.42%) by age 41 years, 9 years earlier. Conclusions Multi-ancestry PRS approaches enhance lung adenocarcinoma risk stratification in East Asian never-smokers, with consistent external validation, suggesting future clinical utility.

Background There is limited prospective or comparative data evaluating the HRQoL impact of intensive chemotherapy (IC) in older adults (age ≥60 years) with AML. In the recent EA E2906 phase 3 study of '7&3' (daunorubicin & cytarabine) vs. clofarabine (CLO), a putative lower intensity therapy, we incorporated a prospective patient-reported outcomes (PRO) assessment of HRQoL and fatigue to understand treatment impact from the patients' (pts) perspective. Methods E2906 study design and results have been presented previously [n=727, med. age 68 years (range 60-86), randomized 1:1 to ‘standard’ ‘7&3‘ & high dose cytarabine (Arm A) vs. single agent CLO (Arm B), as remission induction (Step 1) and consolidation (Step 2), respectively]. There was no difference in composite complete remission (CCR, 50%) or 30-day mortality rates (8.5%), and in primary analysis CLO was inferior for Overall Survival. HRQoL was a key secondary protocol endpoint. PROs assessed HRQoL and leukemia-specific symptoms and concerns using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia scale (FACT-Leu), & Fatigue using FACT-Fatigue subscale. PROs were administered at prespecified time points: (1) Baseline; (2) Cycle 1 at nadir (approx. Day 15); (3) End of Step 1 restaging (approx. D 40); (4) Beginning of Step 2 (1 st consolidation, approx. D 45); and (5) 2 nd cycle consolidation/End Step 2 (approx. D 60). The FACT-Leu Trial Outcome Index ( TOI) was calculated by summing physical well-being, functional well-being, and leukemia-specific concerns subscales to create a single composite score. Higher TOI scores correspond to better HRQoL. The primary endpoint was to evaluate TOI difference from randomization to day 30 after induction therapy between arms, evaluated using Wilcoxon rank sum test. We also compared Clinically Meaningful differences (CMiD) in TOI (defined as patient change ≥½ standard deviation from baseline TOI) between arms, using the X2 test. Pts not completing at least 2 assessment forms (including baseline) were excluded. Testing of constructs of Physical Well-being (PWB), Functional, Leukemia & Fatigue scales demonstrated high Cronbach's a values (a >0.7) except for PWB (a=0.672) at a single time point (End of Step 2). Results Baseline TOI was available for n=489, and 364 pts (n=182 each Arm) were evaluable in this planned analysis. Evaluating CMiD during Cycle 1 induction, pts in Arm B were less likely to experience ‘Worse’ TOI score (32% vs. 40.7%, Arm A), more likely to maintain stable TOI scores (49.1% vs. 39%, Arm A), and had a similar proportion of ‘Better’ TOI scores (20.3%, A vs. 18.9%, B) although differences were not significant (p=0.1389). Conversely in cycle 1 consolidation, more patients in Arm A experienced Better TOI (45.1% vs. 29.2%, Arm B), fewer had stable TOI (45.1% vs. 58.3%, Arm B), and rates of ‘Worse’ TOI were similar (9.8%, A vs 12.5%, Arm B), again differences were not significant (p=0.2616). There was no difference in Fatigue scores between Arms (p=0.49). We evaluated whether TOI and Fatigue scores could predict the ability to complete protocol therapy. In univariate analysis baseline TOI (p=0.0059) and Fatigue (p=0.0057) were associated with Step 1 completion, however on multivariate analysis (adjusting for age, sex, and Arm) were no longer significant [TOI, Odds Ratio (OR) 1.03 (0.98-1.08, p=0.27); Fatigue, OR 1.03 (0.96-1.11, p=0.42)]. There was a borderline association of TOI with Step 2 completion [TOI OR 1.10 (1.00-1.23, p=0.06)]. Using a multivariable linear mixed effects model, we observed similar and significant changes in TOI scores in both Arms, demonstrating the effect of IC & CLO on HRQoL (Figure). Comparing to baseline, TOI scores decreased significantly at C1 induction nadir (-4.0873, p<0.0001), and increased by 5.0762 (p=0.0004) at end Step 1, by 6.9047 at cycle 1 consolidation (p<0.0001), and by 11.4601 (p<0.0001) at end Step 2. Differences were mainly apparent in those who achieved CCR, and there was significant attrition in PRO responses in non-CCR pts. Conclusions Older adults experienced significant improvement in HRQoL after nadir regardless of therapy, and those achieving CCR report significantly higher scores. We did not observe differences in leukemia specific HRQoL or fatigue between treatment Arms (7&3 vs. CLO). Patient-reported HRQoL & Fatigue was not predictive of completion of protocol therapy. These results serve as a benchmark for expectations with IC in older adults.

Abstract Background: The persistence of detectable MRD in complete remission (CR/CRi - CR with incomplete CBC recovery) has been reported to contribute to inferior outcome in younger AML patients (pts) in retrospective studies, however MRD has not been studied prospectively in older adults (age ≥60 yrs) receiving intensive therapy with curative intent. We performed a planned prospective study of MRD status after AML induction therapy in older adults, integrated into the large multicenter ECOG-ACRIN (E-A) E2906 Phase III trial. Methods Eligible patients age ≥60 yrs with AML were randomized 1:1 to receive either 'Standard' 7&3 (Dauno 60mg/m2) induction, with 2 cycles of intermediate dose Ara-C (1.5g/m2 x 12 doses; 6 doses if age ≥70) consolidation (Arm A); or single agent clofarabine (CLO) induction and consolidation (2 cycles) (Arm B). The design and primary clinical results for E2906 (n=727) have been reported previously (Foran et al, ASH #217a, 2015), demonstrating superior overall survival (OS) with standard therapy despite similar CR/CRi rates using stringent criteria, and similar 30-day induction mortality rates. Submission of diagnostic & remission bone marrow or peripheral blood samples was protocol mandated for prospective MRD assessment, and analysis was performed in the central E-A Leukemia Translational Research Lab (LTL) using 6-color multiparameter flow cytometry. MRD-positive (MRD+) was defined as ≥0.1%. LTL flow cytometric analysis was done blinded to treatment arm and outcome of patients. Only pt samples collected within +/-6 days of CR/CRi confirmation were included in this analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using X2 (categories) and Wilcoxon rank sum (continuous) tests to compare baseline patient and disease characteristics. Log-rank tests and multivariate Cox models stratified by treatment arm and adjusted for patient and disease variable (including WBC, cytogenetics, sex, performance status, secondary AML) were used to examine the MRD effect on OS and disease-free survival (DFS, relapse or death). Results The median follow-up is 47.8 months, and 297 of 685 evaluable patients (43.4%) achieved CR/CRi (Standard 44.6%; CLO 42.0%, p=ns). Remission MRD samples were only available for 147 CR/CRi patients (49.5%), owing to variability in sample viability and AML involvement, collection practices and timing of sample collection at individual sites, and patient/physician decision. 58/147 evaluable CR/CRi patients achieved MRD-negative (MRD-) status (Standard 40.7%, CLO 47.9%, p=0.74). Women (56.9% vs. men 43.1%, p=0.003) were more likely to be MRD-, but there was no other significant difference in MRD status stratified by clinical or disease features. MRD+ status at CR/CRi was associated with significantly inferior OS (p=0.031, Figure 1) and also inferior overall DFS (p=0.02); this was most pronounced for DFS after CLO (Arm B, Figure 2) (p=0.005), but not Standard (Arm A) therapy (p=0.41). The impact of MRD+ was confirmed on multivariate analysis using Cox Model Fitting, for OS: OS for All MRD+ pts, HR 1.64 (95% CI 1.00-2.68) (p=0.05); OS for Standard (Arm A) MRD+ pts, HR 1.06 (95% CI 0.51-2.21) (p=0.87); and OS for CLO (Arm B) MRD+ pts, HR 2.30 (95% CI 1.05-5.06) (p=0.04). There was a similar impact for DFS on multivariate analysis using Cox Model Fitting: DFS for All MRD+ pts, HR 1.86 (95% CI 1.16-2.98) (p=0.01); DFS for Standard (Arm A) MRD+ pts, HR 1.15 (95% CI 0.60-2.19) (p=0.67); and DFS for CLO (Arm B) MRD+ pts, HR 3.45 (95% CI 1.47-8.09) (p=0.004). Post-remission therapy was not stratified by MRD in E2906, and 33% of MRD-evaluable pts underwent allogeneic transplantation (no difference in transplant rate for MRD+ vs. MRD-). Conclusions MRD+ ≥0.1% is common (60.5%) after induction therapy in older adults & is significantly associated with inferior OS and DFS in 1st CR/CRi. However we observed excellent outcomes for MRD- pts in first CR/CRi regardless of induction regimen or post-remission therapy used. MRD+ pts in CR/CRi who went on to receive CLO consolidation had significantly poorer outcomes than those who went on to receive intermediate dose Ara-C consolidation. This observation differs strikingly from younger AML, and suggests that intensified Ara-C may abrogate the adverse impact of MRD in older pts in CR. These results strongly support incorporation of centralized MRD at the time of remission into future studies to guide optimal post-remission strategies in older pts with AML. Disclosures Foran: Agios: Research Funding; Xencor, Inc.: Research Funding. Lazarus:Pluristem Ltd.: Consultancy. Altman:Bayer: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Pfizer: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Boeringer Ingelheim: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Epizyme: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Immune Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cyclacel: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Incyte: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; GSK: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Agios: Other: Payment to the institution to conduct the trial ; Astellas Pharma: Other; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ariad: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; FujiFilm: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Genetech: Other: Payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Celator: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work. Al-Kali:Novartis: Research Funding. Pratz:Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Research Funding; Boston Scientific: Consultancy. Powell:Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Tallman:ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; BioSight: Other: Advisory board; Daiichi-Sankyo: Other: Advisory board; Orsenix: Other: Advisory board; AROG: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding.