Citations

8528 Background: RRMM patients (pts) who fail lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT) have poor prognosis. High-risk cytogenetics predict shorter survival. POM + LoDEX has demonstrated efficacy in pts with prior LEN and BORT and high-risk cytogenetics. MM-003 is an open-label, multicenter, phase III trial comparing POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX in RRMM pts who failed LEN and BORT treatment (Tx) and have progressed on their last therapy. Methods: Pts must have been refractory to the last prior Tx (progressive disease [PD] during or within 60 days) and failed LEN and BORT after ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of each (alone or in combination). Randomization was 2:1 to POM 4 mg D1–21 + DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) weekly; or DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) D1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 (28-day cycles). Tx continued until PD or unacceptable adverse events (AEs). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included OS and AEs. This analysis examined pts meeting modified high-risk cytogenetic criteria—del(17p13) and/or t(4p16/14q32). Results: 302 pts received POM + LoDEX, and 153 pts received HiDEX. 225 and 107 pts, respectively, were evaluable for cytogenetics. Baseline characteristics were similar. Median PFS and OS were significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX, regardless of cytogenetic risk (Table). The most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia, anemia, and infection (Table). Discontinuation due to AE was low: 4% vs. 6% (high risk) and 10% vs. 4% (standard risk). Conclusions: Median PFS and OS were significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX in pts with cytogenetically-defined high-risk disease, consistent with results from the intent-to-treat population. Tolerability was acceptable. POM + LoDEX should be considered a new Tx option in pts failing LEN and BORT. Clinical trial information: NCT01311687. [Table: see text]

8527 Background: Pts who have exhausted lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT) treatment (Tx) have a poor prognosis. A significant proportion of pts have RI with increasing incidence during disease course. POM + LoDEX has demonstrated efficacy in pts with prior LEN and BORT, including those with RI. MM-003 is an open-label, multicenter, phase 3 trial comparing POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX in RRMM pts who failed LEN and BORT and progressed on their last Tx. Methods: Pts must have failed LEN and BORT after ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of each (alone or in combination) and must have been refractory to last prior Tx (progressive disease [PD] during Tx or within 60 days). Pts with creatinine clearance (CrCl) < 45 mL/min were excluded. Randomization was 2:1 to POM 4 mg D1–21 + DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) qw; or DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) D1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 (28-D cycles). Tx continued until PD or unacceptable adverse event (AE). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and AEs. This analysis examined pts with or without moderate RI (CrCl < 60 vs ≥ 60mL/min). Results: 302 pts received POM + LoDEX; 153 pts received HiDEX, 31% and 39% had moderate RI, respectively. Pts with moderate RI were more likely to be older (64% vs 36% aged > 65 y) vs no RI. Median follow-up was 4 mo. Median PFS and OS were significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX regardless of RI (Table). Similar AE rates for POM + LoDEX as well as HiDEX Tx were seen in pts with and without moderate RI (Table). Discontinuation due to AE was 5% vs 7% (no moderate RI) and 11% vs 5% (moderate RI). Conclusions: POM + LoDEX significantly extended PFS and OS vs HiDEX in pts with or without moderate RI. Tolerability of POM + LoDEX was acceptable across subgroups, with few discontinuations due to AE. Clinical trial information: NCT01311687. [Table: see text]

8510 Background: RRMM patients (pts) who have exhausted treatment (Tx) with bortezomib (BORT) and lenalidomide (LEN) or thalidomide have a poor prognosis with short overall survival (OS). HiDEX is a well-established standard Tx in RRMM. POM has demonstrated clinical efficacy in pts refractory to LEN and BORT. MM-003 compared POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX in RRMM pts who failed LEN and BORT and who progressed on their last Tx. Methods: Pts must have been refractory to last prior Tx (progressive disease [PD] during Tx or within 60 days) and failed LEN and BORT after ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of each (alone or in combination). Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive 28-day cycles of POM 4 mg D1–21 + DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) weekly or DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) D1–4, 9–12, and 17–20. Tx continued until PD or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included OS, overall response rate (ORR; ≥ partial response), and safety. Analyses were based on intent to treat. Results: 455 pts were randomized to POM + LoDEX (n = 302) or HiDEX (n = 153). The median number of prior Tx was 5 (range 1-17). 72% were refractory to LEN and BORT. Median follow-up was 4 months. POM + LoDEX significantly extended median PFS (3.6 vs. 1.8 months, HR = 0.45, P < .001) and OS (not reached vs. 7.8 months, HR = 0.53, P < .001) vs. HiDEX. The OS benefit was observed despite 29% of HiDEX pts receiving POM after PD. The trial met the primary endpoint of PFS, crossed the upper boundary for OS superiority, and the Data Monitoring Committee recommended crossover from HiDEX to POM ± DEX. With updated data, the ORR was 21% for POM + LoDEX vs. 3% for HiDEX (P < .001) and 24% vs 3% for pts randomized ≥ 6 months post-enrollment (P < .001). The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) for POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX were neutropenia (42% vs. 15%), anemia (27% vs. 29%), and infection (24% vs. 23%). Discontinuation due to AEs was infrequent (7% vs. 6%). Updated data will be presented. Conclusions: POM + LoDEX significantly extended PFS and OS vs. HiDEX in pts who failed LEN and BORT. POM + LoDEX should become a standard of care in RRMM pts who have exhausted Tx with LEN and BORT. Clinical trial information: NCT01311687.

5593 Background: We conducted an international survey to evaluate the differences in the systemic, radiotherapeutic and operative management of endometrial cancer (EC) in different regions of the world. Methods: In 2009 avalidated 15-item-questionnaire regarding surgical and adjuvant procedures of EC was sent to all German gynaecological clinics and in 2010 the English adapted questionnaire was set online as well as sent per post in most major gynaecological cancer societies. Results: 316 German institutions and 302 Institutions from 24 countries participated. We combined the different countries into regional groups: Central Europe (CE), southern Europe (SE), Asia and USA/UK. In Asian countries and in CE a lymph node dissection (LND) was performed routinely in 72.8% and in 55.6% of the cases, whereas in the USA/UK and in SE a LND was done mainly in selected cases when specific risk factors such as high-grade or non-endometrioid-histology applied (62.8% and 72.5%) than routinely (p < 0.001). A systematic pelvic and paraaortic LND was performed most frequently in CE 91.0%, in SE 76.9%, in Asia 70.9% and in USA/UK 68.6% (p < 0.001). A systematic LND with the intention of both adequate staging and for therapeutic value was performed in countries of central Europe to 74.6% and in Asia to 67.2%. In USA/UK the LND was seen merely as a staging instrument by 53.5% (p < 0.001). The LND was performed up to renal veins in CE in 86.8%, in Asia in 80.8%, in USA/UK in 51.2% and in SE in 45.1 %. A significant difference war found in the treatment for FIGO stage I (high risk factors (high grade, L1,V1)) and stage II disease between the countries: chemotherapy was applied in 84.8% of the participated centers in Asia,42.3% in SE, 21.2% in CE and only 13.6% in USK/UK (p<0.001).Vaginal brachytherapy was indicated as follows: USA/UK 84.1%, CE 78.8%, SE 78.8%, Asia 5.6% (p < 0.001). Conclusions: There is a large variety in the operative therapy and the clinical management of EC in different regions of the world. Future international prospective trials, will be necessary to improve and harmonize the evidence based treatment guidelines for EC- disease.

2058 Background: We present a tertiary center experience with high-dose methotrexate, rituximab and temozolomide (MRT) chemotherapy in both primary and secondary CNS lymphoma. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed for a total of 27 patients (20 male, 7 female) who underwent treatment at Mayo Clinic, Rochester between November 2010 and October 2012. The median age was 63 years (range 23-73). Of these, 12 patients were diagnosed with primary CNS lymphoma, while 15 patients had secondary CNS lymphoma. All patients received at least 1 cycle of MRT. The most common histological subtype was diffuse large cell lymphoma (23 of 27 patients). Other histological subtypes were high grade lymphoma (2 patients), Burkitt’s lymphoma (1 patient) and Mantle cell lymphoma (1 patient). Results: Of 26 patients, who underwent imaging studies for response assessment after MRT, 14 patients achieved complete response (CR), 4 patients achieved partial response (PR), 2 patients had stable disease, while 6 patients had evidence of disease progression. Overall, the median number of chemotherapy cycles with MRT was 3 (range 1-6). For patients, who achieved CR, the median number of MRT cycles was 4 (range 2-6). MRT was well tolerated. Of 27 patients, who underwent their entire treatment at Mayo Clinic, grade 3 or higher treatment related toxicity were noted to be as follows – neutropenia (9/27), thrombocytopenia (4/27), anemia (7/29), and transaminitis (10/27). 16 of 27 patients proceeded to high dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant. Out of 16 patients, 14 received BCNU/Thiotepa as conditioning regimen, while 2 patients underwent BEAM conditioning. All 16 patients who underwent transplantation remain in CR at this time. Of the remaining 11 patients, 4 are being planned for autologous transplantation, 2 received and responded to salvage chemotherapy, while 5 patients died of progressive disease. Conclusions: Overall, the MRT regimen was well tolerated. Overall response rate was noted to be 67% (18 of 27 patients) and achieved CR in 54% patients (14 of 26 patients). Patients who underwent autologous stem cell transplantation as consolidation therapy continue to do well at a median followup of 12.5 months (range 2-20 months).

5087 Background: Indication, technique and extent of lymph-node-dissection (LND) in endometrial cancer (EC) remains controversial and is strongly debated in cancer community. We conducted a national- and at a second step an international-survey evaluating the current status-quo of the surgical and medical management of EC. Methods: A validated 15-item-questionnaire regarding surgical and adjuvant procedures of EC was sent to all major gynaecological cancer societies and study groups worldwide. The questionnaire could also be answered online. Results: In a phase-I-national trial, the questionnaire was validated on basis of 316 German institutions. On the phase-II-international survey a total of 302 questionnaires were answered from 24 countries, mainly from Japan (38.7%), Spain (8.3%), Austria (7%), United-Kingdom (6.3%), Italy (6%), USA (4.3%) and Canada (4%). The vast majority of the participating clinics were academic (62.8%), while 75.2% of them belonged to gynaecology. Only 0.7% of the clinics internationally reported never performing LND in EC. 62.3% of the clinics perform both a pelvic and paraaortic lymph node dissection. 59.1% of the participants performed a systematic lymph node dissection with the intention of both adequate staging and for therapeutic value. 15.05% of the clinics perform LND up to the common-iliac-arteries, 9.03% up to the inferior-mesenteric-artery and 70.6% up to the renal-veins. The most common risk-factors to indicate LND were: high-grading (93%), non-endometrioid-histology (90.1%), lymphovascular-invasion (55.3%), blood-vessel invasion (45.4%) and tumor-diameter >2cm (38.4%). For advanced stage III&IV disease the vast majority (60% and 80%, respectively) of the physicians indicated systemic chemotherapy alone. Conclusions: This study presents the large variety in clinical management of EC worldwide, underlining so the high need of future prospective randomised trials which will establish standard and evidence based treatment guidelines for EC- disease.

8579 Background: The ERIVANCE BCC study is the pivotal trial of vismodegib (GDC-0449), a first-in-class small-molecule inhibitor of Hedgehog signaling, for treatment of locally advanced (laBCC) and metastatic BCC (mBCC), for whom there are no other effective therapy options. The study met the primary endpoint of overall response rate by independent review (Sekulic, Melanoma Res 2011). Here we report a 6-mo update of investigator-assessed (I-A) efficacy and safety endpoints as of May 26, 2011. Methods: This multicenter, international, nonrandomized 2-cohort study enrolled patients (pts) with laBCC (deemed inoperable or for whom surgery would be significantly disfiguring), and mBCC pts with RECIST-measurable disease. Pts received 150 mg oral vismodegib daily. Results: 104 pts (71 laBCC/33 mBCC) enrolled at 31 sites in the US, Europe, and Australia. I-A efficacy endpoints are shown in the table. One-year survival rate was 77.3% (95% CI 62.48–92.09%) for mBCC and 93.1% (95% CI 86.49–99.63%) for laBCC. Adverse events (AEs) in >30% of pts were muscle spasms, alopecia, dysgeusia, weight decrease, fatigue, nausea, and amenorrhea (33.3%; 2/6 pts). Serious AEs were reported in 32 pts (31%). No additional fatal AEs were reported since the prior data cut (n=7, 7%; none considered related to vismodegib). Conclusions: This 6-mo update of I-A efficacy and safety endpoints from the ERIVANCE BCC study supports the significant clinical benefit of vismodegib in both laBCC and mBCC reported at the primary analysis. Median DOR and PFS increased numerically with follow-up. The AE profile was consistent with the prior data cut. These results further support the efficacy of vismodegib for treatment of advanced BCC. [Table: see text]

Background and Aims Vacuolar H+‐ATP complex (V‐ATPase) is a multisubunit protein complex required for acidification of intracellular compartments. At least five different factors are known to be essential for its assembly in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER). Genetic defects in four of these V‐ATPase assembly factors show overlapping clinical features, including steatotic liver disease and mild hypercholesterolemia. An exception is the assembly factor vacuolar ATPase assembly integral membrane protein (VMA21), whose X‐linked mutations lead to autophagic myopathy. Approach and Results Here, we report pathogenic variants in VMA21 in male patients with abnormal protein glycosylation that result in mild cholestasis, chronic elevation of aminotransferases, elevation of (low‐density lipoprotein) cholesterol and steatosis in hepatocytes. We also show that the VMA21 variants lead to V‐ATPase misassembly and dysfunction. As a consequence, lysosomal acidification and degradation of phagocytosed materials are impaired, causing lipid droplet (LD) accumulation in autolysosomes. Moreover, VMA21 deficiency triggers ER stress and sequestration of unesterified cholesterol in lysosomes, thereby activating the sterol response element‐binding protein–mediated cholesterol synthesis pathways. Conclusions Together, our data suggest that impaired lipophagy, ER stress, and increased cholesterol synthesis lead to LD accumulation and hepatic steatosis. V‐ATPase assembly defects are thus a form of hereditary liver disease with implications for the pathogenesis of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

AbstractObjectivesIn the TOURMALINE‐MM1 phase 3 trial in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, ixazomib‐lenalidomide‐dexamethasone (IRd) showed different magnitudes of progression‐free survival (PFS) benefit vs placebo‐Rd according to number and type of prior therapies, with greater benefit seen in patients with >1 prior line of therapy or 1 prior line of therapy without stem cell transplantation (SCT).MethodsRNA sequencing data were used to investigate the basis of these differences.ResultsThe PFS benefit of IRd vs placebo‐Rd was greater in patients with tumors expressing high c‐MYC levels (median not reached vs 11.3 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.42; 95% CI, 0.26, 0.66; P < .001) compared with in those expressing low c‐MYC levels (median 20.6 vs 16.6 months; HR 0.75; 95% CI, 0.42, 1.2). Expression of c‐MYC in tumors varied based on the number and type of prior therapy received, with the lowest levels observed in tumors of patients who had received 1 prior line of therapy including SCT. These tumors also had higher expression levels of CD19 and CD81.ConclusionsPFS analyses suggest that lenalidomide and ixazomib target tumors with different levels of c‐MYC, CD19, and CD81 expression, thus providing a potential rationale for the differential benefits observed in the TOURMALINE‐MM1 study. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as: NCT01564537