Suman, Vera J.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Pomalidomide-dexamethasone (Pom-Dex) represents an important therapeutic advance for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Nonetheless, patients with lenalidomide (Len) and bortezomib (double) refractory disease have a median progression-free survival of only 3.7 months with the combination, thus highlighting the need for further progress. Ixazomib, a novel, oral proteasome inhibitor, has pharmacodynamic properties that may allow for improved proteasome inhibition at the tumoral level and has synergistic activity in combination with IMiDs in preclinical MM models. Clinical studies have demonstrated activity as a single agent in relapsed/refractory MM and in combination with Len-Dex in newly diagnosed patients. We therefore evaluated the safety and preliminary efficacy of the combination of Pom, ixazomib and Dex in patients with Len and proteasome inhibitor (PI) refractory MM in the phase I portion of Alliance study A061202. METHODS: Key eligibility criteria included: relapsed or relapsed/refractory disease; ≥2 prior lines of therapy; double refractory disease (progression on or ≤60 days from the last dose of a Len- and PI-based therapy); ECOG performance status (PS) ≤2; absolute neutrophil count ≥1.0 x 109/L, platelets ≥50 x 109/L, creatinine clearance ≥50 mL/min; and ≤grade 2 peripheral neuropathy. Patients were treated with escalating doses of Pom and ixazomib utilizing a standard 3 + 3 dose escalation design in combination with standard dose Dex (Table 1). Patients received 2 - 4 mg of Pom on days 1 - 21; ixazomib 3 - 4 mg on days 1, 8 and 15; and Dex 40 mg (20 mg for those >75 years of age) on days 1, 8, 15 and 22 of a 28-day cycle. Patients were treated until disease progression or the development of unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: Out of 17 evaluable patients, the median age was 64 (range 47 - 77) and the median time from diagnosis 5.5 years (range 3.3 - 8.3). Sixty-five percent, 24% and 12% had ISS stage 1, 2 and 3 disease at the start of treatment, respectively, and 65% had high-risk cytogenetics (gain of 1q, del[17p] and/or high-risk IgH translocation). All patients had an ECOG PS of 0 or 1 (59% and 41%, respectively). Of 14 patients with complete prior treatment data available, 100% had received prior Len, bortezomib and Dex, 71% alkylating agents (cyclophosphamide or low dose melphalan), 71% autologous stem cell transplant and 29% carfilzomib. Eighty-two percent were refractory to sequential Len- and bortezomib regimens, whereas 6% were refractory to a prior Len/proteasome inhibitor combination (12% not reported). Two dose limiting toxicities have occurred to date, 1 each at dose levels 3 and 4 (Table 1). Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and lymphopenia attributable to protocol therapy have been seen in 29%/6%, 12%/6% and 29%/0% of patients, respectively. Twelve percent of patients have experienced grade 3 infection, regardless of attribution, but none have experienced ≥grade 4 infection. The incidence of therapy-related peripheral neuropathy was 24%, none of which was ≥grade 3 in severity. Other common, therapy-related adverse events have included fatigue (53%), nausea (24%), constipation (18%), diarrhea (29%), rash (18%), tremor (24%), anxiety (18%), insomnia (29%) and edema (24%), all of which were ≤grade 2 in severity. Fifty-three percent of patients had at least 1 of the 3 medications dose reduced, and 35% experienced dose delays. To date, 1 patient has discontinued therapy due to adverse events and 1 due to refusal of further therapy. Of 13 patients receiving >1 cycle of therapy, the best overall response rate was 62% (7 partial responses, 1 very good partial response). CONCLUSIONS: The Pom, ixazomib and Dex combination has demonstrated an acceptable toxicity profile thus far with encouraging preliminary efficacy. Updated results of the phase I portion of the study will be presented at the meeting, including the maximum tolerated dose that will be used in the randomized, phase II portion of the study, in which the 3-drug combination will be compared with Pom-Dex in double refractory MM patients. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02004275. Supported by U10CA180821, U10CA180882. Table 1. Dose Level Pomalidomide Dose (mg) Ixazomib Dose (mg) DLT Evaluable DLTs 1 2 3 3 None 2 3 3 3 None 3 4 3 6 1 febrile neutropenia 4‡ 4 4 4 1 grade 4 thrombocytopenia lasting 8 days ‡enrollment into dose level 4 is complete. Disclosures Voorhees: Janssen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Onyx Pharmaceuticals and Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, and Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda and Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: We will discuss the use of Ixazomib, an agent that is not FDA approved, in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone for the treatment of multiple myeloma.. Richardson:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gentium S.p.A.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background: Standard treatment for stage III melanoma is surgery followed by consideration of adjuvant therapy. This strategy is inadequate for high-risk stage III patients who have a substantial risk of subsequent relapse and distant metastasis. The goals of this trial are to improve oncologic outcomes, assess treatment response and spare patients with poorly responsive, rapidly metastatic disease from a futile operation. This protocol based on the hypothesis that treatment before surgery will immunize patients against his or her own unique tumor. While new drugs are now FDA-approved for adjuvant treatment of stage III melanoma, outcomes are still suboptimal in high-risk patients. The neoadjuvant approach is largely untested and preclinical data suggest neoadjuvant therapy is more effective than adjuvant immunotherapy. While targeted therapies can be rapidly effective, immunotherapy responses, when they occur, tend to be much more durable, prompting this study. Our specific strategy is based on the fact that BRAFm melanoma patients benefit both from BRAF/MEK inhibition (vemurafenib/cobimetinib) and PD-1 axis inhibition (atezolizumab) while patients with BRAFwt melanoma benefit from PD-1 axis inhibition (atezolizumab) and intermittent MEKi (cobimetinib) may increase effector function in tumor-infiltrating T cells. A second component of the study is robust evaluation of biomarkers of response, toxicity and outcome. Specific correlatives include assessment of the predictive value of Bim levels in tumor-related T cells, correlation of sPD-L1 with efficacy and toxicity, correlation of PD-L1 expression with efficacy, and determination of key relationships between tumor and immune cells via mIHC spatial analysis, gene expression profiles and microbiome associations with clinical response. Methods: The NeoACTIVATE trial enrolls melanoma patients with resectable clinically detectable nodal metastases (by physical examination or imaging), dual nodal basin disease or nodal recurrence of melanoma. Neoadjuvant systemic therapy is based on BRAF mutation status; participants receive either vemurafenib, cobimetinib and atezolizumab (vem/cobi/atezo), or cobimetinib and atezolizumab (cobi/atezo) before surgery. Following surgery, all patients receive atezo immunotherapy. The primary aim of the study is RFS estimates for each cohort. Secondary aims are safety/toxicity, pathologic complete response rate and prospective evaluation of biomarkers of treatment response and toxicity. This study is significant in that it is the first to test 1) combined of targeted and immunotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting for patients with resectable Stage III melanoma and 2) the novel combination of MEK-inhibition with immunotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting for resectable Stage III melanoma. As of January 1, 2019, 10% of planned patients have been enrolled and enrollment continues. Citation Format: Tina J. Hieken, Vera J. Suman, Shernan G. Holtan, Thomas J. Flotte, Lisa A. Kottschade, Matthew S. Block. Neoadjuvant combination targeted and immunotherapy for high-risk resectable stage III melanoma (NeoACTIVATE), NCT03554083 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT121.

9535 Background: A broad understanding of baseline immunity is needed in order to predict responses to PD-1 blockade. We previously reported in a preclinical model that elevated Th1 signature cytokines are present after successful therapy with PD-1 blockade. In this study we evaluated serum cytokines as biomarkers of response in a cohort of patients with metastatic melanoma undergoing anti-PD1 therapy. Methods: 27 pts diagnosed with metastatic melanoma (MM) received anti-PD-1 therapy and had peripheral blood collected prior to anti-PD-1 therapy start and 12 weeks after; 55 proinflammatory-related serum cytokines were analyzed at both times using the Meso Scale Discovery (MSD) assay. At week 12, we identified 15 pts who had radiographic complete or partial response (TR) and 12 had progressive disease (PD) using RECIST criteria. Spearman rank correlation coefficients (rho) were used to assess association between pre-treatment serum cytokine levels. For each cytokine, differences in pretreatment serum levels and the ratio of the 12 week to pre-treatment serum levels between TR and PD groups were assessed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Results: Pretreatment serum IL-12p40 and MIP3a (CCL20) were moderately correlated (rho=0.3944). Pretreatment IL-12p40 and was found to be significantly higher (p=0.0025) in the TR group (median=48.5; 25th to 75th percentile [IQR]:25.3-63.8) relative to the PD group (median=17.3; IQR: 8.6-30.3). Pretreatment MIP3a was also found to be significantly higher (p=0.0359) in the TR group (median=1.72; IQR: 1.41-2.65) relative to the PD group (median=1.33; IQR: 1.09-1.98). The 12th week pretreatment IL-12p40 ratio (median=1.98; IQR: 1.4-11.3) in the TR group was greater than that (median=0.64; IQR: 0.23-1.61) in the PD group (p=0.0029); we identified that baseline serum levels >15pg/ml of IL12p40 prior to immunotherapy were associated with significantly prolonged event free survival (p=0.001). Conclusions: Measurements of IL-12p40 and MIP-3a levels before immunotherapy may help to select patients who are likely to benefit from anti-PD1 therapy. Additionally, exploration of combination therapies that increase IL-12P40 and MIP3 prior or during immunotherapy should be undertaken.

Abstract Background: MicroRNAs (miRNA) are small, noncoding RNAs with important regulatory roles in tissue development, differentiation, proliferation, and when deregulated tumor formation. The goal of this study was to characterize the miRNA profile of normal breast tissue from carriers of either BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, with and without a prior history of cancer, for biomarker discovery for future prevention studies in high risk patient populations. Methods: MicroRNA profiling was conducted using a panel of breast candidate miRNAs and normal ‘non-cancerous’ tissue biopsy from 15 BRCA1 mutation carriers, 15 BRCA2 mutation carriers and 15 BRCA screened mutation negative subjects from high risk families. Results: While small differences were observed for any individual miRNA between groups, the most striking observation was the presence of a clear BRCA1 miRNA signature that was distinct from that in BRCA2 subjects or in the high-risk, non-mutation carriers. The BRCA1 pattern was present in normal appearing tissue biopsy independent of previous history of cancer, treatment for cancer, age, menopausal status or oophorectomy. BRCA2 carriers and high risk, mutation negative subjects showed an overall shared miRNA expression pattern. MicroRNA species that distinguished the groups included differences in the expressed levels of let-7a, let-7b, miR-125b, miR-145, miR-15b and members of the miR-181 family. Ongoing efforts include pathway modeling to gain insight on novel targets for prevention along with RT-PCR confirmation of differentiating microRNA species as well the potential downstream targets for example of miR-181b target genes including HOXA7, HOXA9, HOXA11 and PBX3. Conclusion: The presence of a distinctive miRNA profile in normal appearing tissue of BRCA1 mutation carriers suggest a major role of BRCA1 mutation status on the normal tissue not previously reported. If corroborated, miRNA profiling studies of normal breast tissue may prove useful in both risk assessment as well as providing insight on deregulated pathways for pharmacologic intervention for risk reduction in the BRCA carrier population. Citation Format: Sandhya Pruthi, Julie Buckmeier, Christina Preese, Vera J. Suman, Rachel M. Hurley, Patricia Thompson. microRNA expression profiling in normal breast epithelium of BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers as prevention targets. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual AACR International Conference on Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research; 2013 Oct 27-30; National Harbor, MD. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Can Prev Res 2013;6(11 Suppl): Abstract nr C47.

Abstract Purpose: BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers develop breast cancers with a tumor phenotype unique from spontaneous tumors. We surveyed documented BRCA mutation carriers to determine willingness to be contacted about participation in future breast cancer prevention research studies directed to their unique phenotype that may or may not require breast biopsies. Methods: At each of the 3 participating institutions, women at least 20 years of age with a documented germline deleterious mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 and no prior history of breast cancer were contacted to participate in a survey to ascertain their willingness to be contacted to participate in future prevention trials. Survey results were summarized using descriptive statistics. Results: Among 56 BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers who responded, 55.4% of women reported high or very high interest in participating in randomized control study of chemoprevention agent vs. placebo. Within this population, post-menopausal women demonstrated a higher interested in study participation (64.5%) versus pre-menopausal women (38.9%). When examining willingness to undergo breast biopsy for a chemoprevention study, women expressed near equal willingness (42.9%) and unwillingness (44.6%) for biopsy. Conclusions: BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers demonstrated significant interest in breast cancer prevention study participation involving trial agent versus placebo, and an equal expression of willingness and unwillingness to undergo breast biopsy, establishing the feasibility for future research elucidating targeted chemoprevention agents. Citation Format: Rachel M. Hurley, Vera J. Suman, Mary Daly, Funmi Olopade, Paul J. Limburg, Sandhya Pruthi. Assessment of interest for breast cancer prevention trial participation among BRCA mutation carriers. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual AACR International Conference on Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research; 2013 Oct 27-30; National Harbor, MD. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Can Prev Res 2013;6(11 Suppl): Abstract nr C01.