Abstract Background Optimum management of low-grade gliomas remains controversial, and widespread practice variation exists. This evidence-based meta-analysis evaluates the association of extent of resection, radiation, and chemotherapy with mortality and progression-free survival at 2, 5, and 10 years in patients with low-grade glioma. Methods A quantitative systematic review was performed. Inclusion criteria included controlled trials of newly diagnosed low-grade (World Health Organization Grades I and II) gliomas in adults. Eligible studies were identified, assigned a level of evidence for every endpoint considered, and analyzed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The relative risk of mortality and of progression at 2, 5, and 10 years was calculated for patients undergoing resection (gross total, subtotal, or biopsy), radiation, or chemotherapy. Results Gross total resection was significantly associated with decreased mortality and likelihood of progression at all time points compared to subtotal resection. Early radiation was not associated with decreased mortality; however, progression-free survival was better at 5 years compared to patients receiving delayed or no radiation. Chemotherapy was associated with decreased mortality at 5 and 10 years in the high-quality literature. Progression-free survival was better at 5 and 10 years compared to patients who did not receive chemotherapy. In patients with isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 gene (IDH1) R132H mutations receiving chemotherapy, progression-free survival was better at 2 and 5 years than in patients with IDH1 wild-type gliomas. Conclusions Results from this review, the first to quantify differences in outcome associated with surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy in patients with low-grade gliomas, can be used to inform evidence-based management and future clinical trials.
Abstract 655: Hyperdiploidy in plasma cell disorders using multi-parametric flow cytometry (MFC) vs. FISH
Abstract Introduction: Hyperdiploidy on FISH portends a good prognosis in myeloma. We compared hyperdiploidy determined by MFC to that by conventional FISH. Methods: We studied 1711 patients with plasma cell disorders who had simultaneous FISH and DNA index testing. Monotypic plasma cells in bone marrow are identified by MFC with antibodies to CD19, CD38, CD45, CD138, kappa and lambda; followed by staining by DAPI. DNA index is determined by dividing the measured DNA content of the G0/G1 abnormal plasma cells by the DNA content of the normal G0/G1 plasma cells present. Plasma cells with DNA content index of <0.95 are hypodiploid and G0/G1 DNA content index of >1.05 are considered hyperdiploid. Results: Distribution DNA index and FISH results are described in Table 1. Sensitivity and specificity of DNA index by hyperdiploidy was 86% and 83%. Cohen's Kappa coefficient for concordance was 0.69. Sensitivity increased to 94% for those with 2 or more trisomies and 97% for 3 or more trisomies. Of the 104 patients with trisomy and non-hyperdiploid DNA index, 62% patients had monosomy (mono) or deletion (del) 13q. Overall, DNA index was lower in patients with mono 13/del 13q (1.01; 0.97-1.11) compared to those without (1.07; 1.0-1.19), p<0.001. After excluding patients with mono 13/del 13q, sensitivity and specificity of hyperdiploidy by DNA index were 92% and 82%, kappa = 0.73. Hyperdiploidy was seen in 55% of 272 patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. Sensitivity and specificity were 88% and 93%, kappa = 0.78. After median follow-up of 2.3 yrs, those with hyperdiploid DNA index had better progression free survival at 2,3 and 5 years, 62%, 45% and 21% compared to 50%, 33% and 13% in non-hyperdiploid group, p=0.05. Median overall survival (OS) was not reached; estimated 2, 3 and 5 year OS was 83%, 76% and 63% vs. 76%, 64% and 44%, respectively; p=0.08. Conclusions: DNA index by MFC is a rapid method to determine hyperdiploidy, with potential for replacing trisomy testing by FISH, especially when coupled with monosomy FISH probes. Hyperdiploid N=768 n/N (%)Diploid N=762 n/N (%)Hypodiploid N=78 n/N (%)P1P2Any trisomy 619/765 (81)96/758(13)8/76 (11)<0.001<0.001One chromosome42587733191429-111362Others12204Two chromosomes8525-Three or more chromosomes492131Any translocation124/744 (17)566/748 (76)53/74 (72)<0.001<0.001t(4;14)106313t(11;14)2240127t(14;16)5325t(14;20)38-t(6;14)8104Unknown partner76524Trisomy + Translocation95/743 (13)60/744 (8)6/74 (8)0.0090.002Monosomy 13/17 or deletion 13q/17p252/759 (33)295/744 (40)54/74 (73)<0.0010.0001Monosomy 13/Deletion 13q208/717 (29)282/718 (39)20/70 (29)Monosomy 17/Deletion 17p70/749 (9)50/735 (7)20/72 (28)P1= three groups; P2= hyperdiploid vs. non-hyperdiploid Citation Format: Surbhi Sidana, Nidhi Tandon, Dragan Jevremovic, Rhett P. Ketterling, Angela Dispenzieri, Morie A. Gertz, Francis K. Buadi, Martha Q. Lacy, William Morice, Curtis A. Hanson, Michael Timm, Patricia Greipp, Linda B. Baughn, David Dingli, Suzanne R. Hayman, Wilson I. Gonsalves, Prashant Kapoor, Robert A. Kyle, Nelson Leung, Ronald S. Go, John A. Lust, S.Vincent Rajkumar, Shaji K. Kumar. Hyperdiploidy in plasma cell disorders using multi-parametric flow cytometry (MFC) vs. FISH [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 655.
Abstract 3129: PD-L1 expression differs across cancer metastatic sites from breast tumors
Abstract Background: Although the efficacy of different immunotherapeutic agents varies greatly across tumor types, little is known about the role of different metastatic tumor microenvironments in modulating the expression of immune-checkpoints like PD-L1. Using metastatic breast cancer as a model, this work explored whether metastatic lesions derived from different patients, but colonizing the same host target organ, showed organ-specific immune signatures. Methods: Snap frozen metastatic lesions collected from 30 breast cancer patients enrolled in a prospective phase II multi-omic precision medicine clinical trial (“Side-Out II”) were used for this analysis. Sites of metastasis were: liver (LI) (n=10), skin/chest wall (SC) (n=10), and other lesions (OL) (n=10) [including lymph nodes (LN) (n=4), lung (LU) (n=3), and intra-abdominal lesions (IA) (n=3)]. Pure tumor epithelia were isolated from each specimen via Laser Capture Microdissection (LCM). PD-L1 expression (Antibody Clone E1L3N) was quantitatively measured using the Reverse Phase Protein Microarray (RPPA), a high-throughput, multiplex immunoassay that provides operator-independent quantitative data starting from a small amount of biological material. Proportion of patients with PD-L1 expression above the median and the 75th percentile of the population was compared across metastatic sites. Results: PD-L1 expression had a >5 fold dynamic range across breast cancer-derived metastatic lesions with different distribution across metastatic sites. Specifically, PD-L1 expression of 6/10 LIs, 5/10 OLs (including 2 LU and 3 LN positive lesions), and 4/10 SC metastases was greater than the population median of all metastases combined. LI metastases were the most represented group above the 75th percentile of the population (4/10), followed by OS (2/10) (including 1 LU and 1 LN positive lesions), and SC (1/10). Of the 15 lesions above the population median, 6 were LI (40%), 5 were OS (33%), and 4 were SC (27%); of the 7 metastases above the 75th percentile, 4 were LI (57%), 2 were OS (29%), and 1 was SC (14%). Conclusions: The LCM-RPPA workflow can capture PD-L1 protein expression on a continuous quantitative scale and provide a broader understanding of the dynamic range of expression. Our data suggest that organ specific microenvironments in which metastatic lesions develop may strongly influence overall PD-L1 tumor cell expression. If different metastatic host organs can modulate PD-L1 expression, location of the metastatic lesion should be kept in consideration when selecting patients that are candidates for immunotherapy. Such hypotheses should be further validated in prospective clinical trial where quantitative PD-L1 expression of different metastatic lesions is evaluated along with response to targeted immuno-oncology compounds. Citation Format: Mariaelena Pierobon, K Alex Hodge, Elisa Baldelli, Steven Anthony, Nicholas J. Robert, Donald W. Northfelt, Mohammad J. Jahanzeb, Linda Vocila, Lance A. Liotta, Bryant Dunetz, Emanuel F. Petricoin. PD-L1 expression differs across cancer metastatic sites from breast tumors [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 3129.
Abstract LB-A10: Preliminary results from a phase 2 proof of concept trial of tipifarnib in tumors with HRAS mutations
Abstract Background: HRAS is a proto-oncogene that is mutated in head and neck, bladder, thyroid, and salivary gland tumors, among others. While discovered over 40 years ago, no specific therapies have yet been developed targeting mutant HRAS. Tipifarnib is a potent and highly selective inhibitor of farnesyltransferase, a critical enzyme requisite for HRAS activation. Over 5,000 patients (pts) have been treated with tipifarnib; although responses have been documented in several tumor indications, the mechanisms of response are still poorly understood. Tipifarnib has demonstrated robust activity in HRAS mutant patient derived xenograft (PDX) models of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) and squamous non-small cell lung cancer that are resistant to standard therapies. This Phase 2 study (NCT02383927) was conducted to test the hypothesis that inhibition of mutant HRAS oncogenic activity with tipifarnib could translate to objective responses in HNSCC pts driven by the HRAS oncogene. Methods: The study was originally designed to enroll pts into 2 single-arm study cohorts: Cohort 1 (thyroid cancer) and Cohort 2 (other solid tumors), each one with a 2-stage design (11+7 evaluable pts) to determine overall response rate (ORR) as the primary objective. This design has 80% power to detect a difference between 10% and 30% ORR at one-sided significance level of 0.087. Two objective responses were needed to be observed in the first stage for each cohort to proceed to stage 2. The study is considered positive if at least 4 responses are observed in one of the 2 cohorts (N=18 each, stages 1 and 2 combined). The prespecified activity goal for the first stage of accrual in Cohort 2 was met and based on data observed in the first stage of this Cohort, ongoing enrollment to the second stage of Cohort 2 was limited to HRAS mutant HNSCC. For enrollment, pts must have an HRAS mutant, locally advanced/unresectable and/or metastatic solid tumor malignancy and RECIST v1.1 measurable disease. Tipifarnib is given at 900 mg orally twice daily on days 1-7 and 15-21 of 28-day cycles. Response assessments are conducted every 8 weeks. Results: As of August 30, 2017, 28 pts have been enrolled. Tipifarnib was generally well tolerated with myelosuppression, gastrointestinal disturbances (nausea, vomiting and diarrhea) and fatigue constituting the most common adverse events (≥30% of pts, all grades). Twenty four pts are currently evaluable for efficacy: 10 in Cohort 1 and 14 in Cohort 2. Stage 1 enrollment continues in Cohort 1. The primary objective was met for Cohort 2 prior to completing full enrollment, with 4 confirmed responses observed out of 14 evaluable pts. Notably, of the 6 pts in Cohort 2 with HNSCC currently evaluable for efficacy, 4 (67%) achieved a confirmed partial response. Three of these pts remain on treatment in cycles 3, 5, and 19, and one subject discontinued at Cycle 21. Two (33%) pts had disease stabilization as best response (4 cycles, ongoing and 7 cycles). Importantly, 4 of these pts were refractory to prior therapies, including regimens containing immunotherapy (pembrolizumab, nivolumab) or cetuximab +/- chemotherapy. None of the 6 HNSCC patients experienced an objective partial response on their last prior therapy. Conclusions: These data suggest that HRAS mutant HNSCC pts may be refractory to standard therapies but can derive prolonged clinical benefit from tipifarnib treatment. Based on the encouraging activity of tipifarnib in pts with HNSCC with HRAS mutations, enrollment continues in this cohort. Citation Format: Alan Ho, Nicole Chau, Deborah J. Wong, Maria E. Cabanillas, Jessica Bauman, Marcia S. Brose, Keith Bible, Valentina Boni, Irene Brana, Charles Ferte, Caroline Even, Francis Burrows, Linda Kessler, Vishnu Mishra, Kelly Magnuson, Catherine Scholz, Antonio Gualberto. Preliminary results from a phase 2 proof of concept trial of tipifarnib in tumors with HRAS mutations [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference: Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2017 Oct 26-30; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2018;17(1 Suppl):Abstract nr LB-A10.
Proposed response assessment and endpoints for meningioma clinical trials: report from the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Working Group
AbstractBackgroundAlthough the prognosis of core‐binding factor (CBF) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is better than other subtypes of AML, 30% of patients still relapse and may require allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT). However, there is no validated widely accepted scoring system to predict patient subsets with higher risk of relapse.MethodsEleven centers in the US and Europe evaluated 247 patients with t(8;21)(q22;q22).ResultsComplete remission (CR) rate was high (92.7%), yet relapse occurred in 27.1% of patients. A total of 24.7% of patients received alloHCT. The median disease‐free (DFS) and overall (OS) survival were 20.8 and 31.2 months, respectively. Age, KIT D816V mutated (11.3%) or nontested (36.4%) compared with KIT D816V wild type (52.5%), high white blood cell counts (WBC), and pseudodiploidy compared with hyper‐ or hypodiploidy were included in a scoring system (named I‐CBFit). DFS rate at 2 years was 76% for patients with a low‐risk I‐CBFit score compared with 36% for those with a high‐risk I‐CBFit score (P < 0.0001). Low‐ vs high‐risk OS at 2 years was 89% vs 51% (P < 0.0001).ConclusionsI‐CBFit composed of readily available risk factors can be useful to tailor the therapy of patients, especially for whom alloHCT is not need in CR1 (ie, patients with a low‐risk I‐CBFit score).
Copy number variant discrepancy resolution using the ClinGen dosage sensitivity map results in updated clinical interpretations in ClinVar
The clinical phenotype of leucine‐rich glioma‐inactivated protein 1 (LGI1) and contactin‐associated proteinlike 2 (CASPR2) autoimmunity is well defined in adults. Data for children are limited (<10 cases). Among 13,319 pediatric patients serologically tested for autoimmune neurological disorders (2010–2017), 264 were seropositive for voltage‐gated potassium channel‐complex–IgG (radioimmunoprecipitation). Only 13 (4.9%) were positive by transfected cell‐binding assay for LGI1‐IgG (n = 7), CASPR2‐IgG (n = 3), or both (n = 3). This is significantly less than in adults. Encephalopathy, seizures, and peripheral nerve hyperexcitability were common, as was coexisting autoimmunity. No faciobrachial dystonic seizures or cancers were identified. Functional neurologic disorders were frequently the initial diagnosis, and immunotherapy appeared beneficial. Ann Neurol 2018;84:473–480
The Utility of Screening for Coccidioidomycosis in Recipients of Inhibitors of Tumor Necrosis Factor α
AbstractWe aimed to validate the prognostic association of p16 expression in ovarian high‐grade serous carcinomas (HGSC) and to explore it in other ovarian carcinoma histotypes. p16 protein expression was assessed by clinical‐grade immunohistochemistry in 6525 ovarian carcinomas including 4334 HGSC using tissue microarrays from 24 studies participating in the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis consortium. p16 expression patterns were interpreted as abnormal (either overexpression referred to as block expression or absence) or normal (heterogeneous). CDKN2A (which encodes p16) mRNA expression was also analyzed in a subset (n = 2280) mostly representing HGSC (n = 2010). Association of p16 expression with overall survival (OS) was determined within histotypes as was CDKN2A expression for HGSC only. p16 block expression was most frequent in HGSC (56%) but neither protein nor mRNA expression was associated with OS. However, relative to heterogeneous expression, block expression was associated with shorter OS in endometriosis‐associated carcinomas, clear cell [hazard ratio (HR): 2.02, 95% confidence (CI) 1.47–2.77, p < 0.001] and endometrioid (HR: 1.88, 95% CI 1.30–2.75, p = 0.004), while absence was associated with shorter OS in low‐grade serous carcinomas (HR: 2.95, 95% CI 1.61–5.38, p = 0.001). Absence was most frequent in mucinous carcinoma (50%), and was not associated with OS in this histotype. The prognostic value of p16 expression is histotype‐specific and pattern dependent. We provide definitive evidence against an association of p16 expression with survival in ovarian HGSC as previously suggested. Block expression of p16 in clear cell and endometrioid carcinoma should be further validated as a prognostic marker, and absence in low‐grade serous carcinoma justifies CDK4 inhibition.