Karsan, Aly

Abstract Purpose: Preclinical studies in myeloid neoplasms have demonstrated efficacy of bromodomain and extra-terminal protein inhibitors (BETi). However, BETi demonstrates poor single-agent activity in clinical trials. Several studies suggest that combination with other anticancer inhibitors may enhance the efficacy of BETi. Experimental Design: To nominate BETi combination therapies for myeloid neoplasms, we used a chemical screen with therapies currently in clinical cancer development and validated this screen using a panel of myeloid cell line, heterotopic cell line models, and patient-derived xenograft models of disease. We used standard protein and RNA assays to determine the mechanism responsible for synergy in our disease models. Results: We identified PIM inhibitors (PIMi) as therapeutically synergistic with BETi in myeloid leukemia models. Mechanistically, we show that PIM kinase is increased after BETi treatment, and that PIM kinase upregulation is sufficient to induce persistence to BETi and sensitize cells to PIMi. Furthermore, we demonstrate that miR-33a downregulation is the underlying mechanism driving PIM1 upregulation. We also show that GM-CSF hypersensitivity, a hallmark of chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML), represents a molecular signature for sensitivity to combination therapy. Conclusions: Inhibition of PIM kinases is a potential novel strategy for overcoming BETi persistence in myeloid neoplasms. Our data support further clinical investigation of this combination.

3579 Background: BRAFV600E ( BRAF) mutations (mts) portend poor prognosis in mCRC and patients (pts) may die before ascertainment. Since 2014, Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH) has performed reflex hereditary screening of CRCs with BRAF and mismatch repair (MMR) immunohistochemistry (IHC). We evaluated this BRAF mt population-based cohort ( BRAFPOP) to establish the true prognosis of BRAF mts in mCRC. Methods: We reviewed all mCRCs from VCH between 4/2014 and 5/2018 for BRAF by IHC (VE1 antibody). Overall survival (OS) from stage IV diagnosis was compared to mCRCs with next generation sequencing (NGS) determined BRAF mts ( BRAFNGS) from BC Cancer & MD Anderson. BRAFNGS OS did not differ by center (p = 0.77). Results: See table for BRAF cohort baseline characteristic comparison. BRAFPOP pts had worse OS than BRAFNGS pts (HR 2.5, 95% CI 1.6 – 3.9, P < 0.0001). Median OS for all BRAF mt pts was 17.9 mos. Both groups had worse OS than wild type pts (P < 0.0001). 52 (81%) of BRAFPOP pts were referred to oncology, 40 (63%) received chemotherapy, and 12 (19%) had NGS BRAF testing. BRAFPOP pts who had NGS testing with BRAF mts had OS comparable to other BRAFNGS pts (P = 0.89) and better OS than BRAFPOP pts that never had NGS testing (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18-0.76, P = 0.030). Pts with BRAF mts and MMR deficiency (dMMR) (n = 40) had worse OS than MMR proficiency (pMMR, n = 202) (1.6, 95% CI 1.0-2.5, P = 0.011). This was driven by BRAFPOP dMMR pts (HR 1.9, 95% CI 0.9-4.0, P = 0.036) as no difference was seen by MMR in BRAFNGS pts (HR 1.3, 95% CI 0.8-2.2, P = 0.30). Conclusions: Current estimates of prognosis for mCRC with BRAF mts likely underestimate its impact due to referral bias for NGS testing. BRAF mts with dMMR are associated with worse prognosis than pMMR. This appears driven by BRAFPOP pts. [Table: see text]