Citations

OBJECTIVEScoliosis is frequently a presenting sign of Chiari malformation type I (CM-I) with syrinx. The authors’ goal was to define scoliosis in this population and describe how radiological characteristics of CM-I and syrinx relate to the presence and severity of scoliosis.METHODSA large multicenter retrospective and prospective registry of pediatric patients with CM-I (tonsils ≥ 5 mm below the foramen magnum) and syrinx (≥ 3 mm in axial width) was reviewed for clinical and radiological characteristics of CM-I, syrinx, and scoliosis (coronal curve ≥ 10°).RESULTSBased on available imaging of patients with CM-I and syrinx, 260 of 825 patients (31%) had a clear diagnosis of scoliosis based on radiographs or coronal MRI. Forty-nine patients (5.9%) did not have scoliosis, and in 516 (63%) patients, a clear determination of the presence or absence of scoliosis could not be made. Comparison of patients with and those without a definite scoliosis diagnosis indicated that scoliosis was associated with wider syrinxes (8.7 vs 6.3 mm, OR 1.25, p < 0.001), longer syrinxes (10.3 vs 6.2 levels, OR 1.18, p < 0.001), syrinxes with their rostral extent located in the cervical spine (94% vs 80%, OR 3.91, p = 0.001), and holocord syrinxes (50% vs 16%, OR 5.61, p < 0.001). Multivariable regression analysis revealed syrinx length and the presence of holocord syrinx to be independent predictors of scoliosis in this patient cohort. Scoliosis was not associated with sex, age at CM-I diagnosis, tonsil position, pB–C2 distance (measured perpendicular distance from the ventral dura to a line drawn from the basion to the posterior-inferior aspect of C2), clivoaxial angle, or frontal-occipital horn ratio. Average curve magnitude was 29.9°, and 37.7% of patients had a left thoracic curve. Older age at CM-I or syrinx diagnosis (p < 0.0001) was associated with greater curve magnitude whereas there was no association between syrinx dimensions and curve magnitude.CONCLUSIONSSyrinx characteristics, but not tonsil position, were related to the presence of scoliosis in patients with CM-I, and there was an independent association of syrinx length and holocord syrinx with scoliosis. Further study is needed to evaluate the nature of the relationship between syrinx and scoliosis in patients with CM-I.

Abstract Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is characterized by the invasion of malignant plasma cells into the bone marrow. While first line treatment options result in significant clinical benefit to patients, spatiotemporal clonal evolution results in disease relapse and mortality. Advances in genomics have armed clinicians with unprecedented insight into the molecular architecture of MM cells, however, the clinical benefit derived by genomics-guided intervention has been limited. We present a novel computational biology modelling (CBM) tool, which takes into account the combined effect of individual mutations, gene copy number abnormalities and large scale chromosomal changes in order to predict the salient molecular pathways utilized by the MM cell for survival. By reverse-engineering MM cell architecture in silico, the CBM tool is able to predict drug response and resistance mechanisms. Thus, our aim was to determine the accuracy of the CBM tool in predicting treatment response of relapsed/refractory MM patients for future management of their disease, in a more individualized manner. Methods: Cytogenetics and somatic mutations (by targeted NGS) for 15 MM patients were input into the CBM model to predict responses to different therapeutic combinations. All patients were relapsed to prior treatment. CBM uses PubMed and other online resources to generate patient-specific protein network maps of activated and inactivated disease pathways. We simulated the specific combinations of the drugs per patient and measured the quantitative drug effect on a composite MM disease inhibition score (i.e., cell proliferation, viability, apoptosis and paraproteins). The actual clinical outcome of the treatments was compared with predicted outcomes. Results: Fifteen patients were analysed using CBM for prediction of treatment response after NGS was performed. 13/15 were clinically evaluable, of which 1 was a responder and 12 were non-responder. 6/13 patients were treated on clinical trial and 7/13 were on drug combinations per physician decision. CBM correctly predicted 1 responder and 11 non-responder with a PPV of 50%, NPV 100%, specificity 91.67%, sensitivity 100%. The accuracy of CBM prediction was 92.30%. CBM also predicted the response of prior drug therapies for its non-response at relapse. For prior drug treatment options, 14 patients were evaluable. All the 14 patients were clinically non-responders and CBM correctly predicted for 13 patients with NPV 100%, Specificity 92.85% and overall accuracy of 92.85%. The majority of patients did not respond to therapies recommended at relapse. As an example, the operative molecular pathways from 2 patients who did not respond to combination treatment, either pre-NGS or post-NGS profiling, are shown in Fig. 1 and Table 1. CBM identified amplification (AMP) of chromosome (chr) 1 (WNT3A, IL6R, CKS1B, MCL1, PIK3C2B, USF1), chr 3 (HES1, PIK3CA, CTNNB1, WNT7A, FANCD2), chr 5 (IL6ST, IRF1, GLRX, SKP2), chr 7 (CDK5, EZH2, IL6, CAV1, ABCB1), chr 9 (NOTCH1, HSPA5, FANCC, FANCG), chr 15 (DLL4, FANCI, ALDH1A2), chr 19 (ERCC1, ERCC2, USF2); deletion(DEL) of chr 13 (CUL4A) , chr 16 (AXIN1, CDH1) and TP53 mutation in different combinations, which confer resistance to therapies at relapse. Conclusions: The CBM technology represents a potential means to identify therapeutic options for MM patients based on the patients individual tumor-genome profile and which can also be deployed for uncovering drug resistance mechanisms. This tool may aid clinicians in decision making for recommending the most appropriate therapy based on standard of care agents or clinical trials; thus improving patient outcomes and reducing unnecessary costs or drug-related toxicities. Disclosures Singh: Cellworks Research India Private Limited: Employment. Sauban:Cellworks Research India Private Limited: Employment. Husain:Cellworks Research India Private Limited: Employment. Kumar:Cellworks Research India Private Limited: Employment. Kumari:Cellworks Research India Private Limited: Employment. Tyagi:Cellworks Research India Private Limited: Employment. Abbasi:Cell Works Group Inc.: Employment. Vali:Cell Works Group Inc.: Employment. Ailawadhi:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Therapeutic advancements have led to significant improvement in outcomes for MM patients. Revised diagnostic criteria from International Myeloma Working Group focus on initiating treatment before the onset of end-organ damage. Thus, timeliness of initial therapy can significantly improve patient morbidity and outcomes. Such an analysis has not been reported for MM. Methods: We analyzed patients diagnosed with MM between 2004-2015 from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Patients who received systemic treatment any time within the first year of diagnosis were included; those treated later than one year were considered possibly initially diagnosed with smoldering myeloma and hence, excluded. Time to initial treatment was divided into centiles with the 4 centiles analyzed being 0-7 days, 8-18 days, 19-37 days and >37 days. We performed univariate and multivariate analyses to compare sociodemographic and clinical factors influencing patient distribution across these timeliness categories and trends over time. Results: A total of 53,665 patients were included with 15,282 in 0-7 days, 12,462 in 8-18 days, 12,723 in 19-37 days and 13,198 in the >37 days treatment categories. Distribution across these centiles over time is shown in Figure. Univariate analyses showed a significant difference in distribution across the timeliness categories by year of diagnosis, patient age, gender, race/ethnicity, education level, insurance type, comorbidity score, treatment facility type, geographical location and distance to treating facility (all p<0.001) but no effect of income level. Multivariate analysis showed that there was a significantly higher likelihood of being in 4th centile (>37 days to treatment) for women (p<0.001), African Americans (p<0.001) or Hispanics (p=0.03; reference: Whites) or diagnosed in more recent years (p<0.001). Patients were less likely to be in the 4th centile if they were ≥80 years (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81-0.98, p=0.02), had >0 Charlson comorbidity score (p<0.001), were uninsured (p=0.02) or had Medicaid (p=0.03) as compared to having private insurance, were in non-community treatment facilities or geographical location other than Northeast (p<0.001). Patient education, income level or distance from treating facility was no longer significant. Conclusions: Several factors were found to affect timeliness of treatment in MM. We noted relatively faster time to initial treatment in elderly, uninsured or those who were treated in academic/comprehensive cancer programs but a delay in treatment for women and racial/ethnic minorities among other factors. These factors need to be addressed for equitable access and treatment practices and to realize improved outcomes for all. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: The CD19 antigen is an attractive therapeutic target as it is highly expressed in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). CD19 is not down-regulated in patients (pts) pretreated with CD20-targeting agents and has a signaling function that promotes the malignant phenotype. In preclinical studies, the Fc-enhanced, humanized, CD19 antibody MOR208 showed synergistic potential in combination with venetoclax (VEN, a small molecule selective inhibitor of the apoptosis regulator BCL-2). Pts with relapsed or refractory (R/R) CLL who failed treatment with the Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) ibrutinib have poor prognosis. A previous phase I study showed that MOR208 was well tolerated, with encouraging single-agent activity in pts with R/R CLL. This ongoing phase II study was designed to assess the safety and preliminary efficacy of MOR208 in combination with idelalisib (Cohort A) or VEN (Cohort B) in pts with R/R CLL previously treated with a BTKi. Results of Cohort A were previously published at EHA 2018 (Poster PF350). Here we report the initial safety and efficacy results for Cohort B. Methods: Adult pts with R/R CLL without transformation or Richter's syndrome, who progressed on BTKi therapy or were intolerant to a BTKi during their last prior therapy, were eligible if they had ECOG performance status 0-2 and adequate organ function. In Cohort B, pts were treated until progression or for up to 24 cycles (C; 28 days (D)/C). MOR208 was administered intravenously at 12 mg/kg body weight, starting from C1D1, weekly during C1-3 (with an equivalent loading dose on D4 of C1), every other week in C4-6, and monthly in C7-24. Oral VEN was administered daily starting from C1D8 on a weekly ramp up dosing schedule, starting at 20 mg on C1D8, increasing to 50 mg on C1D15, 100 mg C1D22, 200 mg C2D1 and reaching the full daily dose of 400 mg from C2D8 onwards. Primary endpoint is the incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs); secondary endpoints include overall response rate (ORR) as per investigator assessment according to IWCLL 2008 guidelines. Results: We report preliminary results of Cohort B with a data cutoff date of June 18, 2018 and a median observation time of 4.6 months. Recruitment in Cohort B was completed with 13 pts who received at least one dose of MOR208. Eleven pts started combination treatment with VEN; 10 pts completed at least 5 weeks of combination treatment, reaching the full daily dose of VEN. Baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. All pts had received ibrutinib therapy and 1 pt had subsequent acalabrutinib treatment. The median number of prior treatment lines, including BTKi therapy in all 13 pts, was 3 (range 1-4). Table 2 summarizes treatment-emergent (TE)AEs. The most common hematological TEAE was neutropenia (38%). Eleven TE serious (S)AEs were reported in 9 pts (69%); all resolved. One grade 3 SAE, tumor lysis syndrome, occurred at ramp up to 50 mg VEN. The pt recovered after treatment and continued VEN 50 mg the day after event onset. Three serious adverse reactions (2 pts with infusion-related reactions, 1 pt with bone pain with pyrexia) were reported in total. Two pts (15%) permanently discontinued study treatment due to an infusion-related reaction arising during MOR208 monotherapy (i.e. before C1D8). One pt (8%) discontinued study participation due to withdrawal of informed consent, when on a dose of 50 mg VEN. The 3 discontinued pts did not undergo a response assessment. Treatment of 10 pts is ongoing and seven pts had at least 1 post-baseline assessment of tumor response on C4D1; all (7/7) had a partial response (PR) based on local investigator assessment. Conclusions: The novel combination treatment of MOR208 with VEN showed generally acceptable safety and tolerability as well as encouraging antitumor activity in pts with R/R CLL who discontinued prior treatment with a BTK inhibitor. Disclosures Staber: Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda-Millenium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Munir:Alexion: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; MorphoSys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schetelig:Roche: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Middeke:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dirnberger-Hertweck:MorphoSys: Employment. Kelemen:MorphoSys: Employment. Weirather:MorphoSys: Employment. Parikh:MorphoSys: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding. Stilgenbauer:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Genetech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding. Wendtner:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Genetech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: There is limited data comparing the outcomes of the two most common (FM or FB) RIC regimens in AML. Previous smaller retrospective studies suggest increased non-relapse mortality (NRM) but decreased relapse with FM based RIC with a variable effect on overall survival as compared to FB. Methods: AML patients aged ≥18 years who had their 1st allo HCT using FM or FB (iv Bu only) RIC between 2001-2015 who had data reported to CIBMTR were studied. Patients with cord blood or identical twin donors, TBI as a part of conditioning, GVHD prophylaxis with T cell depletion/CD34 selection or post HCT Cyclophosphamide were excluded. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and secondary endpoints included non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse, leukemia free survival (LFS) and acute and chronic GVHD. Cox proportional hazards multivariable regression was used to compare the two RIC regimens while adjusting for significant patient, disease and transplant related factors. Major subgroup analysis included patients in CR pre-HCT. Results: 622 patients received FB and 791 had FM RIC. Median age of the FM group was 59 years, range (18 to 76) and median age of FB group was 61 years, range (18- 77). Compared to FB RIC regimen, FM group had more patients with active disease (36% vs 18%), with mismatched donors (24% vs 15%), with bone marrow grafts (19% vs 9%), HCT before 2005 (29% vs 12%) and without ATG/alemtuzumab (58 % vs 48%); but fewer patients in CR1 (46% vs 62%) and matched sibling donor grafts (21% vs 30%). There was significantly increased NRM in the FM vs FB within 3 mo post HCT (hazard ratio (HR)=3.85 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 2.46-6.03), but not beyond 3 mo FM vs FB , HR= 1.14 (95% CI 0.88-1.47). There was significantly decreased relapse for FM vs FB, (HR=0.65 (0.55-0.76), p<0.001) and a marginally superior LFS for FM vs FB, (HR=0.89 (95% CI 0.78-1.00), p=0.05). There was a lower OS FM vs FB within 3 mo post HCT (HR=1.82 (95% CI 1.36-2.45), p<0.001) but similar OS for FM vs FB beyond 3 mo post HCT (HR=0.87 (95% CI 0.76-1.00), p=0.05). Analysis restricted to only patients in CR pre-HCT showed similar results: equivalent survival, higher early NRM and lower relapse with FM. Conclusion: The current study of this large CIBMTR AML transplant cohort has showed that in these two most common RIC regimens for allogeneic HCT, long-term survival with FM was similar to FB. While the FM regimen showed higher early NRM, it was associated with lower risks of relapse. Further analysis to evaluate FB and FM regimens in relationship to comorbidities, comprehensive geriatric assessments, and presence of minimal residual disease is warranted to better define the relative efficacy of these two RIC regimens in AML. Disclosures Weisdorf: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; SL Behring: Consultancy; FATE: Consultancy; Equillium: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Several prognostic models for overall survival (OS) in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have been developed, but none were derived for patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) CLL treated in the era of novel agents. We used a comprehensive approach to derive and validate a novel risk model for OS in 2,475 pts with R/R CLL who received therapy in randomized phase 3 trials evaluating ibrutinib (IBR), idelalisib (IDELA), and venetoclax (VEN) vs control arms, or the Mayo Clinic CLL Database (MCCD). Methods: In collaboration with Janssen, Gilead, Pharmacyclics, and Genentech/Roche, the analysis included 2,475 pts from 6 multicenter randomized phase 3 trials or the MCCD. Trials included were: IBR plus bendamustine-rituximab (BR) vs placebo plus BR (HELIOS: NCT01611090), IBR vs ofatumumab (RESONATE: NCT01578707), IDELA plus BR vs placebo plus BR (Study 115: NCT01569295); IDELA plus rituximab vs placebo plus rituximab (Study 116: NCT01539512); IDELA plus ofatumumab vs ofatumumab (Study 119: NCT01659021); VEN plus rituximab vs BR (MURANO: NCT02005471). All pts had R/R CLL and required treatment by iwCLL criteria. The model-building dataset (n=969) included pts from HELIOS and RESONATE, and was randomly assigned to the IBR/chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) training dataset (n=727) and IBR/CIT internal-validation dataset(n=242). Three independent external validation datasets included IDELA/CIT (n=897), VEN/CIT (n=389), and MCCD (n=220). We applied univariate and multivariate analyses (MVA) to 28 candidate clinical/laboratory and genetic prognostic factors to derive the risk model in the training dataset. The primary endpoint was OS. We assessed the need for separate models for targeted agents by interactions with treatment in univariate analyses. We proceeded to develop a single model for all pts with R/R CLL, as only one candidate factor (del(13q), interaction p value <0.1) demonstrated a marginal differential effect. We evaluated cutoffs for dichotomized covariates and for definition of risk groups after the final factors were selected. We fit a Cox regression on the training and internal/external validation datasets using the risk categories as the covariate to test the difference among the groups, and calculated the C-statistic as a measure of discrimination. Results: Of 11 selected factors with a significant univariate effect on OS (p<0.1), 6 were independently prognostic in the MVA of OS (p<0.05): Baseline β2-microglobubulin (B2M), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), hemoglobin (HGB), IGHV mutational status, number of prior therapies, and time from initiation of last therapy. We excluded number of prior therapies from the model, reasoning that its optimal cutoff might change with advances in CLL therapies. IGHV did not remain significant (p=0.0592) in MVA of 5 remaining prognostic factors. Notably, del(17p) was not independently prognostic for OS. The final risk model consisted of 4 prognostic factors: B2M ≥5 mg/L, LDH elevated, HGB <110 mg/L for women or <120 mg/L for men, and time from initiation of last therapy <24 months. Because hazard ratios for each factor were similar (range, 0.55-0.68) with overlapping confidence intervals, 1 point was assigned to each factor. The resulting score separated pts into low (score 0-1), intermediate (score 2-3), and high risk (score 4) groups. Our risk model was prognostic for OS in the IBR/CIT training dataset (C-statistic 0.74 [95% CI 0.60-0.85]; log-rank p<0.0001) and was validated in the IBR/CIT internal validation (C-statistic 0.79 [95% CI 0.56-0.97]; log-rank p<0.0001), as well as in all 3 external validations: IDELA/CIT dataset (CS=0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.81; log-rank p<0.001); VEN/CIT dataset (CS=0.76, 95% CI 0.66-0.85; log-rank p=0.01); MCCD (CS=0.61, 95% CI 0.56-0.66; log-rank p<0.001). Conclusions: We present the first validated risk model for OS in R/R CLL in the era of targeted therapies. Our model consists of 4 readily available factors (B2M ≥5 mg/L, LDH elevated, HGB <110 mg/L for women or <120 mg/L for men, and time from initiation of last therapy <24 months), identifies 3 prognostic groups with significantly different OS, and has been validated for pts treated with all FDA approved targeted therapies: IBR, IDELA, and VEN. This identifies a well-defined cohort of pts with R/R disease with an unmet clinical need who are suitable for prospective trials targeting these pts. An exploratory analysis regarding prediction of MRD is ongoing. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Darif: Jannsen: Employment. Londhe:Jannsen: Employment. Xing:Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Employment. Mun:Genentech: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kay:Cytomx Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shanafelt:Mayo Clinic: Patents & Royalties: Physician Well-being Index, Medical Student Well-being Index, Well-being index; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Furman:Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Hillmen:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sharman:Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Seymour:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jones:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ferrante:Jannsen: Employment. Dreiling:Gilead: Employment. Mobasher:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Other: Ownership interests non-PLC; Genentech Inc: Employment. Stark:Genentech: Employment. Reddy:Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership; Pharmacyclics: Employment. Howes:Janssen: Employment. James:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Bhargava:Gilead: Employment. Zelenetz:Novartis/Sandoz: Consultancy; Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Significant burden of pain syndromes are reported in patients with hematological malignancies undergoing HSCT mostly due to underlying disease and associated treatments. Opioid analgesics and benzodiazepines are routinely used for symptomatic management in this patient population. The use of narcotic analgesics and benzodiazepines in non-transplant hospitalized patients has been shown to adversely affect health related outcomes such as length-of-stay (LOS), falls and other complications. However, there is a significant knowledge gap regarding the patterns of opioid and benzodiazepine use and their impact on health outcomes in HSCT patients. METHODS: We identified 275 patients from the year 2015-2018 who underwent HSCT (allogeneic and autologous transplants) at our center for a variety of hematological malignancies. Opioid exposure was defined in three groups of patients 1) Opioid naïve: those did not report prior use of opioid at admission and who were not prescribed opioid during hospitalization, 2) Previous Opioid users: those who reported active use of opioid at admission and continued during hospitalization 3) New Opioid users: Patients who did not report opioid use at admission but were prescribed opioid during hospitalization. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify differences in opioid status, opioid use, benzodiazepine use, disease diagnosis, Karnofsky score, gender, age, race, and marital status with associated complications (Poisson regression), emergency department visits (Logistic Regression) and length of stay (Ordinal Logistic Regression) Figure 1 and Figure 2. RESULTS: The median age of patients was 59 (range: 25-74 ) years with slight male predominance (57%). Patients undergoing autologous transplants for multiple myeloma (MM) comprised 48% of the population. The majority (72 %) were exposed to opioid during hospitalization. Ninety two percent of the opioid naïve population (28% of the total population) underwent autologous transplant. Conversely, 36% of patients undergoing autologous transplants never received opiates during hospitalization as compared to 7% of those who received an allogeneic transplant. Median morphine milligram equivalent daily dose was 3.1 mg. Median diazepam equivalent daily dosage in patients that were opiate exposed was 2.07 milligram. Of the total transplant population, 55% received benzodiazepine concurrently with opiates during hospitalization. 76 % of the population was exposed to both opioid and benzodiazepine. Twenty five percent of those who were exposed to opioid did not receive benzodiazepines. Sixty four percent of the MM patients were exposed to opioid of which majority (59%) were previous opioid users. Of the non-MM patients undergoing HSCT, 80% were exposed to opioid of which 36% were previous opioid users and 64% were new users. A wide range of complications from neutropenic fever to death, were seen in 89% of all patients (opioid users and non-users) but all the falls occurred in patients who were on opioid medications. Autologous transplant recipients had higher odds of having a greater number of complications compared to Allogeneic transplant patients (OR 1.25, 95% CI: 1.01 - 1.55, p=0.04), as well as a reduced odds of having a medium or high length of stay (OR 0.03, 95% CI: 0.02 - 0.07). Of the opioid naïve patients, 6% presented to the ED within 30 days of discharge versus 15% of those that were exposed to opiates during hospitalization. Benzodiazepine use at admission for HSCT was associated with greater odd of presenting to ED within 30 days of discharge (OR 3.94, 95% CI: 1.55-10.04) and this was more significant in patients with MM (OR 4.08, 95% CI: 1.01-16.44). Finally, we also saw a trend towards longer stay in patients who were exposed to opioids as compared to opioid naïve (40% vs. 17%). CONCLUSION: Our study, albeit limited due to its retrospective design, is among the first to report the patterns of use and the impact of opioids and benzodiazepines in patients undergoing HSCT. Our results indicate that the use of these medications is frequent in this population and as in the non-transplant hospitalized patients and is associated with more emergency room visits post discharge, along with other potentially adverse outcomes. Disclosures Kharfan-Dabaja: Incyte Corp: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau. Ailawadhi:Amgen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Older patients (pts) with AML unfit for intense induction chemotherapy have a poor prognosis with a 5 year survival of <10%. 225Ac-lintuzumab is composed of 225Ac linked to a humanized anti-CD33 monoclonal antibody. Data were previously presented on the initial 13 pts who received 2.0 µCi/kg/dose on Days 1 and 8 (ASH, 2017, Abstract 616). Although that dose resulted in a high response rate of 69%, there were 6 pts with Grade 4 thrombocytopenia lasting >6 weeks and 5 CRi patients did not reach an ANC of ≥ 500/µL. Therefore, the activity level was reduced to 1.5 µCi/kg/dose for further evaluation. Methods: This study enrolled older pts with untreated AML who were considered to be unfit for standard induction chemotherapy. Pts aged 60 to 74 years were required to have significant co-morbidities, while all pts ≥ 75 years were eligible. Other eligibility criteria included ECOG PS 0-2, CD33 expression on > 25% of blasts, and a peripheral blast count <200/µL within 10 days of the first dose to optimize targeting of bone marrow (BM) blasts. Hydroxyurea was used to lower peripheral blast counts. 1.5 µCi/kg of 225Ac-lin were administered IV on Days 1 and 8. G-CSF was given starting 10 days after the 2nd dose and spironolactone was given for up to 1 year to minimize the risk of radiation-induced nephrotoxicity. Pts were evaluated for the CD33 splicing polymorphism SNP rs12459419. Results: 18 pts were included in this prespecified Interim Analysis. An additional 9 pts were treated at this dose and will be included in an updated analysis at the ASH meeting. The median age of the 18 pts was 73.5 years (range 60-87) and median ECOG Performance Status was 1 (0 in 3 pts, 1 in 9 pts, & 6 in 2 pts). 11 pts had prior AHDs (6 MDS, 2 CMML, 2 NHL, 1 myelofibrosis), and 9 had prior treatment for AHDs. Of the pts with known cytogenetic and molecular genetic results, 1 had favorable-risk, 3 had intermediate-risk, and 5 had adverse-risk AML using NCCN guidelines. The median baseline BM blast % was 40.5% (range, 22-66%) with a median CD33 expression of 62% (range, 26-100%) of AML cells. Objective responses were seen in 4 pts (22%): 3 complete remissions with incomplete platelet count recovery (CRp) and 1 complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi). Among the responders with known cytogenetics, 1 pt had adverse genetics and 1 had Intermediate-risk genetics.Of the pts with remission, 3 had CT genotype for the CD33 splicing polymorphism SNP rs12459419 (including 2 CRp) and 1 had CC genotype. 3 of the responders are in follow up at Days 59, 169 and 266 without further treatment. Myelosuppression was seen in all pts including Grade 4 thrombocytopenia with marrow aplasia for > 6 weeks after the first dose in 4 pts. 1 pt with prior MDS had pancytopenia for > 4 months. The 3 pts with CRp achieved an ANC ≥ 1000/µL at Days 28, 38, and 40 from the first dose of 225Ac-lin. The pt with CRi did not reach an ANC of 500/µL. Non hematologic Grade ≥3 Treatment-Emergent adverse events (AEs) that were at least possibly related were 4 patients with febrile neutropenia, as well as 1 patient each with fungal pneumonia, acute respiratory failure, pulmonary edema, chest pain, sepsis, gastric hemorrhage, generalized muscle weakness, atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response and typhilitis. No pts had an infusion-related reaction requiring dose interruption. Veno-occlusive disease did not occur. The 30-day mortality rate was 16.7% (1 cardiac arrest and 2 with multi organ failure). Conclusions: Preliminary data from this Interim Analysis of 225Ac-lin monotherapy in older AML pts unfit for intensive therapy indicate a lower rate of myelosuppression at 1.5 µCi/kg/dose but also a lower response rate than was seen at 2.0 µCi/kg/dose. Although the study met the prespecified response criteria for continuing enrollment, it will be closed to further accrual in recognition that targeted radiation, like other therapies, will likely have the best outcomes when used in combination with other therapies in pts with active AML. An extensive development program in AML, MDS, and multiple myeloma is planned. One study will utilize 225Ac-lin in combination with salvage chemotherapy and another with venetoclax. 225Ac-lin will be used as a single agent for AML postremission therapy. In addition, 225Ac-lin will be used as targeted conditioning prior to hematopoietic stem cell transplant in pts with MDS with a complex karyotype and as a conditioning agent prior to autologous transplant in MM. Table. Table. Disclosures Atallah: Jazz: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Orozco:Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Craig:Novartis: Research Funding; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Levy:Takeda (Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.): Consultancy. Finn:Ochsner Clinic Foundation: Employment. Perl:NewLink Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Arog: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Park:Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Shire: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Roboz:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy. Tse:Brown Cancer Center, University of Louisville School of Medicine: Employment; Jazz: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Amgen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Mawad:Swedish Cancer Institute: Employment. Rizzieri:Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Teva: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Arog: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Berger:Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jurcic:Astellas: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding; Syros Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Research Funding; Genetech: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Outcomes of multidisciplinary and molecular tumor boards have been reported. Lymphoma specific tumor board outcomes have not been reported in the molecular era. In addition, the utility of multi-site, interactive tumor boards using videoconference technology are not widely reported. We prospectively followed the outcomes of a multidisciplinary multi-site lymphoma tumor board in the molecular era and during a change in the revision of the World Health Organization Classification in first published in 2016. Methods: The Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Tumor Board is a component of the international Mayo Clinic Care Network (MCCN). The format includes the clinical case presentation, presentation of radiology and hematopathology findings by the appropriate specialist, proposed treatment options, review of the literature pertinent to the case, and discussion followed by recommendations. Requirement for presentation includes having a diagnosis of lymphoma with pathology reviewed at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (MCR). Pathology and radiology material, when relevant to the case, are required to be reviewed at MCR and presented by MCR pathologists/radiologists. Patients must be presented prospectively, and have active clinical issues or questions to be addressed. Four cases are presented per 60-minute meeting. 309 consecutive highly selected cases with a diagnosis of lymphoma were presented at the Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Tumor Board from 2014 to 2018. The pathology material was independently reviewed by the presenting hematopathologists and radiology material by the presenting radiologist. Participants are office based and included multiple members of the health care team which also incudes pharmacists, clinical research associates affiliated with lymphoma research, and physicians in training. Recommendations were prospectively tracked for changes in radiology interpretation, pathologic diagnosis, and treatment approaches. Actual follow-up of all patients after the meeting was not allowed in the MCCN. Participation in the meeting can be either via in-room attendance at MCR, video conference at a participating MCCN site, or via non-participatory live-stream online. Results: 309 cases were presented were presented from 2014-2018. 258 cases were from MCR, and 51 were not physically seen at MCR. 16 cases were presented at a subsequent meeting for further recommendations in the course of their disease after the initial presentation. 54% of patients presented had changes in some aspect of their care as a result of the meeting. Changes in radiologic interpretation occurred in 5 (1.6%) patients. The pathologic diagnosis changed in 27 (8.7%). Additional testing was recommended in 44 (14%). Clinical management changes were recommended in 90 (29%) cases. These included alterations in treatment approach in 43 (14%), change from undecided to pursuit of treatment 10 (3%), change from undecided regarding treatment approach to further diagnostic testing 4 (1.3%), change from observation to treatment 9 (3%), change from treatment to observation 4 (1.3%), and treatment to further tests in 2 (0.6%) Site in room average attendance (internal/external) was 16.8/8.6. Non-participatory live-stream attendance was not possible to track. In an annual electronic evaluation of this activity, 93% of the responders reported an improvement in knowledge and competence, and 100% recommended no changes to the format of the conference. Enhancements over time have included Continuous Medical Education credit, an in room microscope, and real-time radiology images. Selected cases will now be on line on an international web site. Conclusion: In this highly selected group of lymphoma cases from multiple sites over a 4-year period, 54% of the (167/309) case presentations resulted in changes to some aspect of care as a direct result of this tumor board. A multidisciplinary lymphoma tumor board approach was of value, efficacious, and meaningfully impacted lymphoma patients while substantially enhancing interdisciplinary interactions. Disclosures Ansell: Celldex: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding.

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has expanded significantly with the approval of multiple small molecule inhibitors. This is of great significance for patients with adverse cytogenetic features who tend to respond poorly to standard chemo-immunotherapy (CIT). While single agent ibrutinib and venetoclax (V) have shown high rates of overall response, complete remission and minimal residual disease (MRD) eradication rates remain low. This argues for further testing and development of various combination strategies. The MURANO trial compared venetoclax and rituximab (VR) versus bendamustine and rituximab (BR) in patients with relapsed/refractory CLL reporting clear superiority of VR over BR. MRD rates in the bone marrow were reported to be 27.3% for VR versus 1.5% for BR. Given much higher rates of MRD eradication with combination of small molecule inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies (mAb) compared to standard CIT, we performed a comparative investigation into the direct and immune-mediated cytolytic effects of VR versus V + Obinutuzumab (O, type II anti-CD20 mAb) in primary CLL cells and B-lymphoid cell lines. METHODS: CD19+ B-cells were isolated from PBMCs of CLL patients (N=3). For all experiments using primary CLL cells, concentration of VR and VO was 3nM (V) and 10ug /ml (R, O), respectively. For cell lines, VR and VO was used at 5uM (V) and 10ug /ml (R, O), respectively. Apoptosis was determined by annexin-V/PI staining followed by flow cytometry. Antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) induced by VR and VO was assessed in Calcein AM labeled CLL cells or cell lines co-cultured with healthy donor PBMCs (E:T ratio, 40:1); complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC) was measured using 10% serum from a healthy human donor. RESULTS: We assessed the ability of V+/-O or V+/-R to induce apoptotic cell death in the CD20+ BCWM.1 cell line (Waldenström's macroglobulinemia [WM] phenotype) and the MEC-1 cell line (B-PLL phenotype); with CD20- RPCI-WM1 (WM cells, negative control). Notably, Bcl-2 protein is expressed in all the aforementioned cell lines. We observed that single agent V, O and R induced ~30%, 61% and 13.64% annexin V/PI positivity in BCWM.1 cells, respectively. However, a significant degree of cell death was noted in VO-treated cells (~74%) compared to VR-treated cells (~40%) (p<0.01). Next, we examined for apoptosis in MEC1 cells and noted a similar trend; where the VO combination induced markedly more cell death (~71%) than VR (~57%). Contrastingly, in RPCI-WM1 cells neither single agent O or R could elicit >12% annexin V/PI positivity and where the addition of V increased apoptosis by only 3 - 4%. We also examined the apoptotic potential of VO or VR in tumor cells from low, intermediate and high-risk CLL patients. In low and intermediate-risk CLL cells from low and intermediate-risk patients, V alone induced ~30% cell death, which increased significantly with the addition of O (VO) to between 48 - 52%. Contrastingly, the combination of VR did not induce more than 29 - 32% apoptosis. In CLL cells from high-risk patient, we noted that exposure to single agent V induced ~ 28% cell death and in VO-treated cells, this number increased to 47%. We also examined for ADCC and CDC in the same cell lines and primary CLL cells. Despite considerable variability, single agent O and VO treatment of tumor cells resulted in greater ADCC than VR treatment. By contrast, in single agent R or VR-treated cells, more CDC was observed. CONCLUSION: Our preliminary investigation in VR- and VO-treated cell lines and primary CLL cells suggests the VO combination may be superior to VR in induction of direct tumor cell death. Mechanistic experiments underway will provide further insight and can aid in design of future VO-based clinical studies in CLL. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy.