Dong, Hua

Abstract Background and Rationale: Axi-cel is a standard-of-care treatment for relapsed or refractory LBCL after 2 or more lines of systemic therapy. Some patients who would have been ineligible for ZUMA-1 criteria due to comorbidities have been treated with axi-cel in the real-world setting. We interrogated a large registry of patients treated with standard-of-care axi-cel for a definitive report on the impact of age or certain comorbidities on safety and efficacy outcomes after axi-cel infusion. Methods: From October 2017 to August 2020, 1500 patients were enrolled in the postapproval safety observational study of axi-cel treated at 79 centers. Patients eligible for the protocol and followed up for at least 6 months with complete data entry by the time of analyses were included. One patient rescinded consent and 1 was deemed ineligible. Patients previously treated with immune effector cell therapy (n=31), with incomplete follow-up reporting (n=92), or alive but last contacted <180 days postinfusion (n=32) were excluded from analysis. Main efficacy outcomes included complete and objective response rates (CR and ORR), duration of response (DOR), progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS). Safety endpoints of interest included cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS). Outcomes were assessed and compared by age and preselected coexisting disease or organ impairment within 3 months prior to the infusion included in the hematopoietic cell transplantation comorbidity index. Multivariate logistic and Cox regression models were used to assess the impact of age or coexistent organ dysfunction on outcomes via odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) and their 95% CIs. Results A total of 1343 patients were included in the analysis with a median 25.1 months (range, 10.3-42.7 months) for potential follow-up, defined from infusion to data cutoff date, and a median 11.8 months (range, 0.1-38.8 months) for actual follow-up time, defined from infusion to date of death or last contact. Of these, 38% were 65 years or older (median 62 years), 4% had a performance score ≥2, 13% had cardiac comorbidities, 16% had a prior cancer, 9% were obese, 2% had moderate to severe hepatic comorbidities, and 2% had renal comorbidities. Transformed lymphoma, double or triple-hit by fluorescence in situ hybridization, prior autologous transplant and refractory disease were present in 28%, 15%, 27% and 66%, respectively. Bridging therapy was administered in 21% of patients. Overall, ORR was 74%, (CR 56%), and probabilities of DOR, PFS, and OS at 18 months were 61% (95% CI, 57-65%), 42% (95% CI, 39-45%) and 52% (95% CI, 49-55%), respectively. Overall rates of CRS and ICANS were 83% and 55%, respectively. ORR was 78% (CR 62%, median OS 17.5 [95% CI, 16.0-not evaluated (NE)] months) for patients ≥65 years, ORR 57% (CR 29%; median OS 4.3 [95% CI, 2.5-8.3] months) for patients with hepatic dysfunction, ORR 70% (CR 43%; median OS 8.9 [95% CI, 3.8-NE] months) for patients with renal dysfunction; and ORR 47% (CR 20%, median OS 4 [95% CI, 2.6-6.9] months) for patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 2 or 3. Multivariate analyses indicated that advanced age (≥65 years vs <65 years; OR 1.38; 95% CI, 1.05-1.83), moderate to severe pulmonary disease (yes vs no; OR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55-0.98), and ECOG (2-3 vs 0-1; OR 0.31, 95% CI, 0.18-0.53) impacted ORR (Table). Age ≥65 years did not have an impact on survival (HR 1.05, 95% CI, 0.88-1.26), although it was associated with CRS (OR 1.42, 95% CI, 1.03-1.96) and ICANS (OR 1.78, 95% CI, 1.39-2.28). Coexistent cardiac disease (HR 1.44, 95% CI, 1.12-1.83), renal disease (HR 2.13, 95% CI, 1.32-3.46) and hepatic dysfunction (HR 2.65, 95% CI, 1.69-4.14) had an impact on OS, but not on response, CRS, and ICANS. ECOG significantly impacted all efficacy outcomes. None of the other comorbidities tested significantly impacted outcomes. Conclusion: Advanced age (≥65 years) was not associated with worse efficacy outcomes after axi-cel, despite higher rates of CRS and ICANS, which require closer monitoring. Performance status rather than age should be accounted for in patient selection and treatment decisions with axi-cel. Most coexistent organ dysfunctions have no clinically significant impact on axi-cel objective response and safety outcomes. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Locke: Moffitt Cancer Center: Patents & Royalties: field of cellular immunotherapy; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; EcoR1: Consultancy; Emerging Therapy Solutions: Consultancy; Gerson Lehrman Group: Consultancy; Iovance Biotherapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Takeda: Consultancy, Other; Novartis: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; Wugen: Consultancy, Other; GammaDelta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Umoja: Consultancy, Other; Cellular Biomedicine Group: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Calibr: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Cowen: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Legend Biotech: Consultancy, Other; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role. Jacobson: Axis: Speakers Bureau; Nkarta: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Lonza: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Humanigen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Clinical Care Options: Speakers Bureau. Ma: Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment. Dong: Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment. Hu: Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Siddiqi: BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Oncternal: Research Funding; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Ahmed: Seagen: Research Funding; Tessa Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding. Ghobadi: Atara: Consultancy; Wugen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Miklos: Pharmacyclics: Patents & Royalties; Kite, a Gilead Company, Amgen, Atara, Wugen, Celgene, Novartis, Juno-Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Allogene, Precision Bioscience, Adicet, Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Takeda, Adaptive Biotechnologies and Miltenyi Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics, Amgen, Kite, a Gilead Company, Novartis, Roche, Genentech, Becton Dickinson, Isoplexis, Miltenyi, Juno-Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Allogene, Precision Biosciences, Adicet, Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies, Novartis, Juno/Celgene-BMS, Kite, a Gilead Company, Pharmacyclics-AbbVie, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, AlloGene, Precision Bioscience, Miltenyi Biotech, Adicet, Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lin: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Legend: Consultancy; Vineti: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Perales: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Nektar Therapeutics: Honoraria, Other; Miltenyi Biotec: Honoraria, Other; MorphoSys: Honoraria; NexImmune: Honoraria; Sellas Life Sciences: Honoraria; Cidara: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Omeros: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Other; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Other; Incyte: Honoraria, Other; Medigene: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Equilium: Honoraria. Lunning: Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb Co.: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Acrotech: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Hill: Gentenech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte/Morphysis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Nikiforow: Kite/Gilead: Other: ad HOC Advisory Boards; Novartis: Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards; Iovance: Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards; Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK): Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards. Xu: Gilead Sciences: Other: stock or other ownership ; Kite, A Gilead Company: Current Employment. Pasquini: Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding.

7552 Background: Axi-cel is approved in the US for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory LBCL after 2 or more lines of systemic therapy. Post-market long term follow up study of commercial Axi-cel recipients using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research was recently completed. Methods: From October 2017 to August 2020, 1,500 Axi-cel recipients from 79 centers were enrolled. Of these, 1001 patients with at least 6 months of follow-up were included in this analysis. Outcomes include complete and overall responses rates (CR and ORR), duration of response (DOR), progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS), cytokine release syndrome (CRS) (Lee D 2014 and American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy [ASTCT]), immune effector cell associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), hematologic recovery and subsequent neoplasm (SN). Subgroup analysis by sensitivity to therapy, defined as responsive to the last line of therapy prior to Axi-cel. Median follow-up was 12 months (range, 6-28 months). Results: The median age overall was 62 years, 37% were ≥ 65 years, 83% with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score 0-1, 28% with transformed lymphoma, 14% with high grade lymphoma, 29% with prior autologous transplant, and 66% with chemotherapy-resistant disease prior to Axi-cel. The median time from diagnosis to Axi-cel infusion was 15 months. Best ORR was 70% (CR 53%). Landmark analysis of patients in CR at 6 months post Axi-cel demonstrates a low number of subsequent progression/death events. With respect to outcomes for chemotherapy-sensitive disease versus resistant disease, the ORR, CR, 12-month PFS and OS were 78% vs. 66%, 60% vs. 48%, 55% (95% CI, 48-62%) vs. 40% (95% CI, 37-44%), and 70% (95% CI, 63-76%) vs. 54% (95% CI, 50-58%), respectively. CRS of any grade was reported in 83% of patients. Incidence of Grades ≥ 3 CRS was 10% according to Lee et al 2014, and 13% according to ASTCT Consensus Grading. Median time to any grade CRS was 4 days (range, 1-28 days), and 93% of CRS cases resolved with a median duration of 7 days (range, 1-121 days). ICANS were reported in 576 (57%) patients, grade >3 was 26%. The median time to onset of ICANS was 7 days (range, 1-82 days), and 86% resolved with a median duration of 9 days (range, 1 to 115 days). Twenty-nine patients (2.9%) reported SN: hematologic (N = 17), solid tumors (N = 12). Conclusions: This is the largest report on Axi-cel in the real-world setting and demonstrates consistent efficacy outcomes and further characterizes safety outcomes. Patients in CR at 6 months have sustained disease control with low number of relapse events. Although patients with therapy-sensitive disease experience better outcomes than patients with therapy-resistant, the overall outcomes on both groups of patients are favorable.

Abstract Background: Simtuzumab (SIM) is a humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits lysyl oxidase-like molecule 2 (LOXL2), an extracellular matrix enzyme that catalyzes the covalent cross-linking of collagen and is widely expressed across many fibrotic diseases. In pre-clinical models, inhibition of LOXL2 blocks fibroblast activation, which plays an important role in the development of organ fibrosis. In Phase 1 studies, SIM was well-tolerated in patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors, liver fibrosis, and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). A Phase 2, open-label study to determine the efficacy of SIM alone (Stage 1) and combined with ruxolitinib (rux) (Stage 2) in pts with primary myelofibrosis (PMF) and post-ET/PV MF was initiated. Methods: Eligible pts had intermediate-1, intermediate-2, or high risk disease and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of <2. The primary endpoint was rate of clinical response as defined by a reduction in bone marrow fibrosis score following 24 weeks of treatment with SIM. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive 200 mg or 700 mg SIM by intravenous infusion every 2 weeks as monotherapy (Stage 1, n=24) or combined with rux (Stage 2, n=30). Patients received SIM for up to 24 weeks. Bone marrow biopsies and aspirates were performed approximately every 3 months. Bone marrow fibrosis scoring was performed and quantified at local investigator sites using the European Consensus on Grading Bone Marrow Fibrosis. Myelofibrosis symptoms were evaluated using the Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF) and changes in hematologic parameters and splenomegaly were assessed. Results: Between 7/14/11 and 9/22/14, 54 pts were randomized and treated (200 mg SIM [n=12], 700 mg SIM [n=12], 200 mg SIM/rux [n=15], and 700 mg SIM/rux [n=15]). In Stage 1, 0 subjects (0%) in the SIM 200 mg group and 2 subjects (16.7%; 90% CI 3.0%, 43.8%) in the SIM 700 mg group showed a reduction in bone marrow fibrosis score from Baseline to Week 24. In Stage 2, 1 subject (6.7%; 90% CI 0.3%, 27.9%) in the SIM 200 mg/rux group and 2 subjects (13.3%, 90% CI 2.4%, 36.3%) in the SIM 700 mg/rux group showed a reduction in bone marrow fibrosis score from Baseline to Week 24. In an exploratory analysis, similar numbers of subjects showed increases in bone marrow fibrosis scores. SIM treatment was not associated with meaningful improvements in hematologic parameters or reductions in MPN-SAF score or spleen size. The most frequent adverse events were those commonly associated with MF, including constitutional symptoms and reductions in hematological parameters. Conclusions: SIM treatment alone or in combination with rux is safe but does not reliably reduce bone marrow fibrosis in pts with MF. The reason for reduction of marrow fibrosis in some patients and increase in others is unclear and may be sampling variability. Clinical studies of SIM in IPF and liver fibrosis are ongoing. Disclosures Savona: Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mesa:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Oh:CTI Biopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dong:Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Equity Ownership. Thai:Gilead Sciences: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gotlib:Allakos, Inc.: Consultancy.

SummarySimtuzumab, a monoclonal antibody inhibitor of extracellular matrix enzyme lysyl oxidase‐like‐2, showed preclinical promise and was well tolerated in clinical studies. A phase 2, open‐label study of simtuzumab was conducted in patients with primary myelofibrosis (MF), post‐polycythaemia vera MF and post‐essential thrombocythaemia MF. Fifty‐four patients were randomized to receive simtuzumab alone (200 or 700 mg [n = 12 each group]) or simtuzumab (200 or 700 mg) with ruxolitinib (n = 15 each group) for 24 weeks. Simtuzumab alone or in combination with ruxolitinib showed no clinical benefit at 24 weeks. The mean serum simtuzumab trough concentrations appeared to increase dose‐proportionally between the 200‐mg and 700‐mg treatment groups. Therapy‐related serious adverse events were pyrexia, pain in extremity (both in 1 patient) and infusion reaction (in another patient). Bone marrow fibrosis (BMF) score was reduced at 24 weeks in 2 patients (16·7%) in the simtuzumab 700‐mg group, 1 (6·7%) in the simtuzumab 200‐mg + ruxolitinib group, and 2 (13·3%) in the simtuzumab 700‐mg + ruxolitinib group; similar numbers of patients had increased BMF. Simtuzumab alone or with ruxolitinib was well tolerated but did not produce clinical benefit nor consistently reduce BMF in patients with MF by 24 weeks.