Shin, John Y.

e24030 Background: Physical activity (PA) in cancer survivors improves quality of life (QOL), functioning, fatigue, and reduces the risk of treatment complications, cancer recurrence and death. However, the optimal intervention for increasing PA is not established. Most prospective studies have shown a 6-12-week program to be an effective intervention but this is often not feasible. Therefore, we piloted a one-time individualized exercise prescription in our cardiac rehabilitation center to improve PA in cancer survivors. Methods: We prospectively enrolled cancer survivors who had completed curative intent treatment, with no evidence of active disease in this pilot study. Survivors who consented underwent a consultation with an exercise physiologist for needs assessment followed by a supervised exercise session with a tailored exercise prescription. Survivors also filled out surveys assessing their PA and QOL at baseline (bl), 3, 6 and 12 months after intervention. Clinical information was collected via chart review. We estimated longitudinal PA score and change in PA using mixed models incorporating scores from all available time points using SAS (v 9.4). Results: Between May 2018 and January 2020, 50 participants (26 lymphoma and 24 solid tumor survivors) completed the intervention. 20% participants were on maintenance therapy during the study. Clinical characteristics of 42 evaluable participants are summarized in Table. The survey response rate was 82%, 58%, 58%, 46% at bl, 3, 6 and 12 months respectively. The level of PA improved with time [mean (SE) PA score: 58.5 (4.3) bl, 63.9 (4.8) at 3, 57.6 (4.8) at 6, 62.6 (5.3) at 12 months]. The change in PA from baseline to follow-up time-points [bl vs 3m p=0.41; bl vs 6m p=0.88; bl vs 12m p=0.55] or between the lymphoma and solid tumor survivors was not statistically significant and limited by sample size. No significant trend in QOL was seen. Conclusions: Individualized exercise prescription using the cardiac rehabilitation program may be a feasible, widely applicable tool to implement a PA intervention among cancer survivors. The trend towards improvement in PA in this novel one-time intervention provides intriguing evidence and deserves future study in larger sample sizes to understand if it can improve and create sustainable PA change comparable to longer term exercise interventions.[Table: see text]

TPS2659 Background: Leukocyte-Associated Immunoglobulin-like Receptor (LAIR)-1 and LAIR-2 are members of the Leukocyte Receptor Complex (LRC) (An & Brodsky, 2016). LAIR-1 is a co-inhibitory receptor expressed on several subsets of immune cells, and functions to delimit immune responses (Meyaard et al., 1997). LAIR-2 is a secreted protein with homology to the transmembrane protein LAIR-1 (Lebbink et al., 2008). In cancer, it is hypothesized that LAIR-1 expression on several subsets of leukocytes prevents optimal immune responses by limiting both innate and adaptive immune functionality. LAIR-1 serves to suppress anti-tumor immunity through the inhibition of stimulatory signaling pathways. Specifically, LAIR-1 is a checkpoint and adhesion receptor on T cells that limits T cell activation and increases adhesion to collagens (Meyaard, 2008). LAIR-2 is capable of blocking LAIR-1 functional interactions with ligands, resulting in improved immune function on multiple immune cell subsets. Dysregulation of LAIR-1 ligands in the tumor microenvironment results in excessive production of collagens and complement C1q as well as altered forms of collagens, that leads to immune inhibition through binding to LAIR-1+ immune cells. NC410 is a dimeric form of the LAIR-2 protein fused to a human Fc domain of the immunoglobulin (Ig) subtype IgG1. The rationale for developing NC410 as a cancer therapeutic is based on nonclinical data demonstrating LAIR-1 signaling blockade can improve the immune response. Because LAIR-2 binds to ligands shared with LAIR-1 with increased affinity, NC410 acts as a decoy receptor for LAIR-1 ligands releasing suppression from myeloid cells and T cells and promoting anti-tumor immunity. NC410 may also mediate remodeling of the tumor extracellular matrix, further contributing to anti-tumor activity. Methods: This is a multi-center, first in human, phase 1/2, open-label, single-armed study to determine the safety and tolerability, define maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and/or pharmacologically active dose, assess preliminary efficacy, and explore predictive and pharmacodynamic biomarkers of NC410 in subjects with advanced or metastatic solid tumors. Key eligibility criteria include measurable disease based on RECIST v1.1 and being able to consent for collection of biopsies at screening and on treatment. Phase 1 is a classic 3+3 dose escalation design to determine the safety, tolerability, DLT, MTD and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) (NCT04408599). Ongoing exploratory analyses include the assessment of predictive biomarkers associated with treatment benefit, and pharmacodynamic markers associated with study drug activity. Phase 2 is going to enroll ovarian, colorectal, NSCLC, H&N, and gastric carcinomas and other tumors depending on biomarker data available from the Phase 1 part of the study. Clinical trial information: 04408599.

PURPOSE: There is a concern that influenza vaccination could increase the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. The aim of our study was to determine the safety of influenza vaccination in this patient population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients who received at least 1 dose of pembrolizumab during any influenza season from September 2014 to August 2017 and reviewed medical records for irAEs. The primary endpoint was the incidence of irAEs. We used multivariable logistic regression and cumulative incidence curve with competing risks for comparison. RESULTS: Among 162 patients with cancer included in this study, 70 patients (43.2%) received at least 1 influenza vaccination. The vaccinated group was significantly older ( P = .002) and received more cycles of pembrolizumab ( P = .006). The incidence of any grade irAEs in the vaccinated group trended toward being lower (25.7% v 40.2%; P = .07) compared with the nonvaccinated group. Influenza vaccination was independently associated with fewer irAEs, with an odds ratio of 0.4 (95% CI, 0.2 to 0.9; P = .03) in multivariable analyses. The vaccinated group was less likely to have irAEs compared with the nonvaccinated group (24.7% v 34.4% at 12 months; P = .05), with death as a competing risk. The median irAE-free duration in the vaccinated group was longer than the nonvaccinated group (not reached v 28 months; P = .037). CONCLUSION: Influenza vaccination in patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy was not associated with increased irAEs. This supports the safety of influenza vaccination in this patient population.

Background: Seizures in patients with glioblastoma are associated with worse quality of life. However, their incidence, clinical characteristics, and prognostic implications are less well characterized. Objective: This study was undertaken to provide a contemporary experience along with benchmark data relevant to the above in patients with glioblastoma. It also sought to reexplore improved survival with seizures, as observed by others. Methods: In this single-institution study, patients with glioblastoma from 2010 through 2014 had their medical records reviewed in detail. Results: Among 122 patients, 58 (48%) had a seizure history. Of these, 67% had more than 1, 41% had generalized seizures, and most received antiseizure medication (most commonly levetiracetam). The median survival for patients with seizures was 1.66 years and 0.87 years for those without (hazard ratio for risk of death with seizures: 0.72; 95% confidence interval: 0.43, 1.21; P = .22 by the log-rank test). Conclusion: Seizures are common in patients with glioblastoma and, in contrast to earlier reports, are not associated with a statistically significant improvement in survival.