Citations

Abstract Abstract 3803 Background: The MMRC is a non-profit, disease-focused consortium founded in 2004 comprised of 13 North American centers with expertise in multiple myeloma (MM). The MMRC Inc. (Norwalk, CT), MMRC's member institutions, and several pharmaceutical partners work closely to speed early development of new treatment options for MM patients. In December 2007, MMRC headquarters staff implemented multiple project management (PM) business solutions to address trial barriers that delay activation of our phase I-II clinical trials and established trial metric benchmarks considered attainable at our member institutions. In November 2009, we reported initial data1 on trial activation: MMRC trials initiated between Sep08-Jul09 (n=5) demonstrated a 38% decrease in mean time to first patient dosed (FPFD), compared with the Early Group trials (EG) initiated before PM solutions (Jun06-Sept08; n=7 trials). These results also confirmed improvement over published metrics from Dilts et al 2,3. We present additional data on time to FPFD and now enrollment, to assess impact of the MMRC PM resources and processes on trial efficiency. Methods: Twenty-one (21) trials conducted within the MMRC from May 2006 to June 2010 had sufficient trial data for review. Data were collected by MMRC-funded project managers at the clinical centers using a web-based clinical trial management system (CTMS). FPFD was defined as the time from the member institutions' receipt of the final protocol (FP) from the trial sponsor, to the time the first patient was dosed on the trial at any participating MMRC member institution. With respect to enrollment, pre-study enrollment commitment (EC) established between MMRC and the study sponsor was defined as the total number of subjects committed to receive at least one dose of study drug across all participating MMRC centers on a trial; baseline enrollment timeline (BET) was prospectively defined as the target time period to attain EC. Results: Mean time to FPFD was 181 calendar days for the early group trials (EG, n=7) and 122 days for the recent group (RG) trials (n=14, Sep08 – Jun10), representing a 32% reduction of time to FPFD in the RG. Additionally, time from final protocol to first patient dosed at all MMRC centers on a trial decreased 18% from a mean of 7.7 months (EG) to 6.3 months (RG). With respect to MMRC trial enrollment, data was available for 16/21 trials (5 EG and 11 RG). 2 EG trials were missing data and 3 RG trials were still enrolling as of June 2010. The mean MMRC pre-study EC was 39 subjects per trial (n=16 trials; 626 enrollment target); the mean actual MMRC enrollment was 49 subjects per trial (n=16; 783 enrolled through Jun 29, 2010) representing a 25% increase in actual versus committed enrollment. Two trials did not meet MMRC EC: MMRC investigators discontinued their involvement in these trials at approximately 30% target EC due to trial complexity or low patient enrollment. 14/16 evaluable trials (88%) met their EC; 11/16 trials met EC within BET (69%) of which 8/16 trials (50%) reached EC 34% faster than their BET (representing a mean reduction of 4.5 months). The overall pre-study mean BET for 16 trials was 13.1 months. MMRC's actual mean enrollment timeline was 11.3 months for the group of 14 evaluable trials representing improvement over the original BET by a mean of 1.9 months (14%). We believe FP to FPFD is a more meaningful metric beyond that of first patient consented. Moreover, we believe that if all participating trial centers focus their efforts on dosing the first patient and within a targeted timeframe, it may improve our research efforts overall. Conclusion: Development of drugs in the clinical setting has become time and resource intensive. Activating and enrolling trials promptly is a priority for drug development. The MMRC's standardization of processes and support for site-based PM resources results in improved trial metrics. MMRC member centers met or exceeded pre-specified enrollment targets in 88% of the trials analyzed to date. Ongoing monitoring of trial conduct continues to reveal areas where increased focus is needed to realize further trial efficiencies. These trial metrics and measures to improve efficiency may be applied with similar expected benefit in all oncology disciplines. Disclosures: Wear: Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Richardson:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Revta:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Vij:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Research Funding; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Fiala:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Lonial:Bristo-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millenium Pharmaceuticals Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Francis:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Siegel:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau. Schramm:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Jakubowiak:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC, Research Funding; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Centocor Ortho-Biotech: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Exelixis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Harvey:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Reece:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ortho Biotech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Facet: Research Funding; Otsuka: Honoraria, Research Funding. Gul:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Jagannath:Celgene: Honoraria; Millenium: Honoraria; Orthobiotec: Honoraria; Onyx Pharma: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Proteolix: Honoraria; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. La:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Hofmeister:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Jansak:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Stewart:Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Member Institution of the MMRC. Hagerty:Mayo Clinic: Employment; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Wolf:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Orthobiotech: Speakers Bureau. Davis:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Krishnan:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Duarte:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Zimmerman:Millennium, Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Cisneros:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Member Institution of the MMRC. Birgin:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Ott:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Tasca:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Kelley:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Anderson:Millennium: Consultancy; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Acetylon: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Giusti:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment.

Abstract Background MDS is a clonal hematopoietic stem cell disorder characterized by dysplastic changes in the bone marrow, ineffective hematopoiesis and an increased risk for developing acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The majority of MDS cases are sporadic, but rare familial cases have been described and are often ascertained through clinic-based referrals. To our knowledge, no population based study of MDS has examined the frequency of family history of hematologic malignancies and disorders in patients, nor associations with disease characteristics and outcomes. Methods Newly diagnosed MDS cases are being identified by rapid case ascertainment by the Minnesota Cancer Surveillance System (MCSS), a population-based cancer registry in Minnesota. Eligibility criteria include all newly diagnosed cases of MDS during the period April 1, 2010-October 31, 2014, between 20-85 years, Minnesota resident, and ability to understand English or Spanish. Proxy interviews are not being conducted. Medical records and biologic samples are obtained and questionnaires are filled out by participants. Centralized pathology and cytogenetics review confirm diagnosis and classify by subtype and risk score including the Revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R). Since 2010, information on family history has been obtained through questionnaire responses and/or medical record review on 353 MDS patients. Cases were considered to have a positive family history if they reported a first degree relative with MDS, leukemia, lymphoma or other hematologic condition (multiple myeloma [n=4], Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia [n=1] and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura [n=1]). Treatment related MDS cases were excluded leaving 330 MDS patients for analysis. Unconditional logistic regression was used to calculate crude odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) overall and by sex. Results A total of 61/330 (18.5%) cases reported a family history of a hematologic condition. The mean age at diagnosis was 71.3 years in those with a family history compared to 72.2 years in those without a family history (p=0.53). There was no difference in the sex distribution between the two groups. Though not statistically significant, the odds of having abnormal cytogenetics or an IPSS-R of High/Very High was lower for those having a positive family history (OR 0.57 [CI 0.25-1.33, p=0.19 and 0.67 [CI 0.24-1.84, p=0.29], respectively). The odds of survival at one year after diagnosis was significantly higher in those with a family history (OR 2.79 [CI 1.04-7.51, p=0.04]) compared to those without (Table). Further stratification by sex revealed that this association was strongest for males (OR=4.23, [CI 0.94-19.0, p=0.06] compared to females (OR=1.84 [CI=0.47-7.19, p=0.38]). Discussion In this population based study of adults with MDS, the prevalence of MDS cases having a positive family history was higher than previous reports. Additionally, cases reporting a family history of hematologic malignancies and disorders appear to experience lower risk disease and have significantly improved overall survival, especially males. It is possible that patients with a family history of hematologic conditions are diagnosed earlier in the course of their disease secondary to increased awareness about blood disorders and/or more active screening within the family. Our analysis is limited by relatively small numbers, but enrollment is ongoing so subsequent analyses with larger numbers of subjects may be more revealing. Additionally, a prospective study to examine these families further, including detailed medical histories and collection of biospecimens (saliva, blood, skin) for genetic analyses is underway in order to identify potential mechanisms and mutations involved in the development of MDS and progression to AML. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Introduction Much remains unknown regarding the etiology of MDS and why some cases progress to acute myeloid leukemia (AML). With MDS reportable as a distinct myeloid malignancy for the first time only in 2001, there are few data on state cancer registry case identification and classification accuracy. To grasp the true incidence and the scope of this heterogeneous clonal hematopoietic malignancy, the accuracy of such information is essential. In our third year of a large population-based prospective study of MDS to investigate risk factors for initial diagnosis and disease progression, we report our experience with MDS case identification and classification according to both our state cancer registry and our comprehensive central review process Methods We began our identification and follow-up of all newly diagnosed adult MDS cases in Minnesota in April 2010. Our process includes rapid case identification by the Minnesota Cancer Surveillance System (MCSS), contact of individual patients, and their participation in an extensive questionnaire and medical history review. In concert, all cases pass through central medical review including: 1) independent pathology review by two hematopathologists; 2) independent cytogenetic review by a cytogeneticist; 3) integrated central pathology-cytogenetic review; and 4) medical chart review by an oncologist to identify pertinent clinical history and treatments and prospectively calculate risk stratification scores (International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS)). Annual follow-up monitors for disease progression and outcome. Results We describe the first 161 patients enrolled who have completed central review. Our data highlight the excellent concordance between MCSS and central review for the MDS subtypes RAEB (n=40/50, 80%), RARS (n=20/23, 87%), and RCMD (n=19/25, 76%). However, we noted poor concordance for the MDS subtypes RA (n=1/7 (14%) with 5 cases re-classified as RCMD) and MDS-U (n=3/24(13%) with 21 cases re-classified into other MDS subtypes). Notably, our integrated central review process identified and reclassified 12 additional cases of t-MDS when all data were considered. Our central review process noted an additional 30 cases classified as MDS by MCSS that we deemed ineligible after central review due to insufficient morphology (n=20) or reclassification to chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) (n=5), MDS/MPD (n=3), or AML (n=4). Conclusion Ours is the first large prospective population-based study of MDS that includes central pathology, cytogenetic, and clinical review of newly diagnosed patients with prospective risk stratification calculation and long term follow-up. Our review highlights the variability in the diagnosis and subclassification of MDS between our state cancer registry and after integrated central review, with as many as 80% of cases in certain MDS subtypes being re-classified, and an approximately 20% ineligibility rate. The high proportion of cases submitted in MCSS as MDS-U that were re-classifiable into specific MDS subtypes following central review suggests a possible misapplication of this MDS category in a way not intended by the 2008 WHO guidelines. The additional classification of t-MDS by our central review process suggests that this subtype is likely underestimated by cancer registries. Assessment of therapeutic implications will be important to determine if these variabilities are consequential. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Abstract 2742 Poster Board II-718 Background: The BCR-ABL inhibitor imatinib has revolutionized the treatment of CML, and improves the efficacy of chemotherapy in Ph+ ALL. Acquired imatinib resistance (IR) is an emerging problem. Patients who develop IR have a dismal prognosis and novel therapeutic strategies are needed. Mechanisms of resistance include mutations and overexpression of BCR/ABL. In addition, BCR/ABL-independent pathways may contribute to resistance. Mounting evidence suggests that aberrant histone deacetylase (HDAC) expression plays a key role in acquired IR. HDAC inhibition has been shown to downregulate BCR/ABL expression via multiple mechanisms. The functional effects of HDAC inhibition include cell cycle arrest and induction of mitochondrial damage and caspase-dependent apoptosis, both in cells that are imatinib sensitive (IS) and IR. We hypothesized that HDAC inhibition will demonstrate synergistic activity in combination with imatinib in IR cells. To test this hypothesis, we employed entinostat (SNDX-275), a novel, class I HDAC isoform selective inhibitor currently being tested in multiple phase 2 clinical trials. We explored the use of SNDX-275 alone and in combination with imatinib and dasatinib in IR and IS p210BCR/ABL expressing cell lines. Methods: K562 (p210BCR/ABL expressing CML cell line), IR K562 cells (Weisberg E, et al. Blood. 2000;95:3498), Ba/F3 cells, Ba/F3 cells transfected with p210BCR/ABL and Ba/F3 cells transfected with the T315I mutant form of BCR/ABL were treated with increasing concentrations of SNDX-275 (0.2 to 1.6μM), imatinib (0.1 to 1.6 μM), and dasatinib (0.3 to 250 nM) for 72 hours. The cells were also treated with combinations of SNDX-275 plus imatinib and SNDX-275 plus dasatinib at the same range of concentrations for 72 hours. All experiments were done in triplicate. Drug-related effects on cell viability were determined by MTT cytotoxicity assays. CalcuSyn software was used to calculate the IC50 for each drug in each cell line and to calculate the combination index (CI) for cell lines treated with combinations of imatinib or dasatinib plus SNDX-275. A CI from 0.9 to 1.1 indicates that the two drugs have an additive effect, below 0.9 indicates synergy between the two drugs and above 1.1 indicates antagonism. Results: In the Ba/F3 p210BCR/ABL and Ba/F3 T315I cells, SNDX-275 alone had minimal activity up to 1 μM. In K562 and IR K562 cells SNDX-275 alone led to significant cytotoxicity with an IC50 of 0.662 μM and 0.495 μM respectively. In the IR cell lines, cotreatment with SNDX-275 enhanced the activity of both imatinib and dasatinib. For the IR K562 cells, imatinib plus SNDX275 was potently synergistic with a CI of 0.6234. Dasatinib plus SNDX275 treatment of IR K562 cells was additive with a CI of 1.1015 (figure 1). Similarly, in the Ba/F3 T315I cells imatinib plus SNDX275 resulted in synergistic activity (CI = 0.87) and additive activity when treated with dasatinib plus SNDX275 (CI = 0.97). On the contrary, cotreatment of non-IR cell lines with dasatinib or imatinib plus SNDX-275 did not result in synergistic activity and revealed evidence of antagonism. In the K562 cells, the combination of imatinib plus SNDX-275 was antagonistic with a CI of 1.308 (figure 1A). In the Ba/F3 p210BCR/ABL cells, the combination of dasatinib plus SNDX-275 was strikingly antagonistic with a CI of 2.9. Conclusions: BCR/ABL-independent mechanisms of resistance, including aberrant acetylation of histone and non-histone proteins secondary to the deregulation of HDACs, contribute to IR in patients with CML and Ph+ ALL. Our data support this hypothesis, as the HDAC inhibitor SNDX-275 enhances the activity of imatinib and, to a lesser extent, dasatinib in IR p210BCR/ABL expressing cell lines. Therefore, SNDX-275 may represent a novel therapeutic approach to patients with IR CML and Ph+ ALL, and a phase I clinical study is planned. In contrast, SNDX-275 may antagonize the activity of the tyrosine kinase inhibitors in nonresistant CML and Ph+ ALL. To our knowledge, this is the first report of antagonism between a HDAC inhibitor and tyrosine kinase inhibitors in CML. Further investigation is necessary to define the mechanism and clinical significance of this antagonism. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Primitive megakaryocytes (PMs) have been first observed in murine embroynal yolk sac [Xu et al. Blood. 2001 Apr 1;97(7):2016–22.]. The biological characteristics and functional aspects of human primitive megakaryocytes are not well established even though they can be transiently observed by bone marrow stromal cell (OP9) co-culture methodology [Gaur, M et al J Thromb Haemost.2006 Feb;4(2):436–42.; Eto K et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.2002 Oct 1;99(20):12819–24.]. The goal of this study is to charaterize PMs’ unique biological and functional features. To obtain a pure population of human primitive megakaryocytes, human embryonic stem (hES) cells were cultured to form embryoid bodies. CD34+/CD31+/VE-Cadherin+/Flk-1+ hemangioblasts on day 12 were isolated and further cultured for 10–12 days in media containing thrombopoietin (TPO), interleukin 3 (IL3), stem cell factor (SCF). 30% of the non-adherent cells were strongly positive for CD31/CD41/CD61/CD42b, and weakly positive for CD42a/CD45/beta-2-microglobulin (B2M) but negative for CD117 or HLA-DR. The DNA ploidies are exclusively 2N–8N confirming the primitive status of PMs. Morphologically when compared to bone marrow derived megakaryocytes, PMs readily produce long processes with chains of “proplatelet” like structures. By live videomicroscopy, these “proplatelet” structures can actively recruit mitochondria. Interestingly, “platelet-like” fragment shedding from megakaryocytes is significantly stimulated in the presence of nitric oxide and human plasma. The “platelet-like” fragments and megakaryocytes respond to strong agonists, including thrombin and TRAP, with aggregation, alpha granule release and increased affinity for fibrinogen. In contrast, weaker agonists such as ADP only generate minimal response. This study provides preliminary evidence that primitive megakaryocytes have acquired some basic machinery of hemostasis even when the blood flow, liver function and coagulation factors are not present at the early phase of embryonal development. [We thank Dr.William L. Nichols at Mayo Clinic for his critical reviews of this abstract.]

Abstract Abstract 1859 Genome wide RNA interference studies identified Aurora Kinase (AURK) A and B as lethal targets in Multiple Myeloma (MM) while suppression of these genes also sensitized MM to bortezomib (BTZ). MLN8237 is an oral inhibitor of AURKA. We therefore conducted a Phase I clinical trial of MLN8237 in combination with BTZ. The study enrolled a total of 19 patients at 5 institutions. 9 patients are still receiving active treatment as of the date of this report. Study Design: The phase I portion of this study uses a standard 3+3 design to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of MLN8237 and BTZ in patients with relapsed/refractory MM. Eligibility required a minimum of 1 and maximum of 4 lines of prior therapy. Patients who have received prior BTZ therapy were allowed on trial as long as they did not progress during prior BTZ or ≤ 60 days of therapy discontinuation. The following laboratory values were required £7 days prior to registration. ANC3 1000/mL, Hgb ≥9 g/dl, PLT3 100,000/mL, Total bilirubin £1.5 × upper limit of normal (ULN), Creatinine £ 2.5 × ULN, a baseline LVEF ≥45%. Patients were required to be able to take oral medication and to maintain a fast as required for 2 hours before and 1 hour after MLN8237 administration. Treatment Overview: The first 3 patients received MLN8237 at 25 mg po days 1–14 and BTZ at 1.3 mg/m2/dose iv. days 1, 4, 8, 11 on a 28 day schedule. Based on data from other concurrent trials an amendment changed dosing of MLN8237 to 20, 30, 40 or 50 mg po twice daily on days 1–7 and BTZ was given at 1.5mg/m2 iv weekly on a 28 day schedule. Results: Median age of patients was 64, 63% were male, 31% had high risk genetics, 84% had prior stem cell transplant, 53% of patients were relapsed and 47% were relapsed and refractory to therapy. No DLTs were observed even at the highest dose level tested. However, one patient at the highest dose level required a platelet transfusion in order to initiate treatment on time in Cycle 2. Thus, a further 3 patients accrued at the highest dose level before declaring the MTD and proceeding to phase II. The highest dose level (Dose Level 3: MLN8237 50 mg po twice daily on days 1–7; BTZ 1.5 mg/m2 iv. given on days 1, 8, 15, 22) was the final dose level tested (the MTD of single agent MLN8237 is 50mg as defined in other Phase I trials). The ORR was 26% (1 CR, 4 PR); when minor responses are included the ORR was 52%. Median follow up was 4.3 months (range 0.9–23.4) and PFS was 5.5 months. At last follow up 12 patients showed no progression and 7 had progressed. Toxicity: 63% of patients experienced a grade 3AE and 5% a grade 4 AE. Grade 3 or 4 toxicity seen in more than one patient was all hematologic with thrombocytopenia and neutropenia being common. Other toxicity of any grade regardless of attribution occurring in more than 20% of patients included neuropathy 63%, fatigue 63%, diarrhea 53%, nausea 47%,vomiting 26%, infection 32%, alopecia 21%, Conclusions: The MTD of the combination is MLN8237 50 mg po twice daily on days 1–7 and BTZ at 1.5mg/m2 iv weekly. Phase II testing is underway and updated results will be presented. Disclosures: Stewart: Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Vij:Millennium: Speakers Bureau. Hofmeister:Celgene: Advisory board Other, Honoraria.

Family caregiver engagement in clinical encounters can promote relationship-centered care and optimize outcomes for people with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD). Little is known, however, about effective ways for health care providers to engage family caregivers in clinical appointments to provide the highest quality care. We describe what caregivers of people with ADRD and people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) consider potential best practices for engaging caregivers as partners in clinical appointments. Seven online focus groups were convened. Three groups included spousal caregivers ( n = 42), three included non-spousal caregivers ( n = 36), and one included people with MCI ( n = 15). Seven potential best practices were identified, including the following: “acknowledge caregivers’ role and assess unmet needs and capacity to care” and “communicate directly with person with ADRD yet provide opportunities for caregivers to have separate interactions with providers.” Participants outlined concrete steps for providers and health care systems to improve care delivery quality for people with ADRD.

Abstract Clinical GVHD staging varies between centers and is not agreed upon by independent reviewers (Weisdorf, BBMT 2003). These inconsistencies help explain why promising GVHD treatments from single center studies have not reproduced in multicenter trials. To address this issue, our international GVHD research consortium has developed guidance that has been refined through consensus following case discussions, resulting in uniform and reproducible GVHD clinical symptom reporting. We record all raw target organ symptom data and apply staging based upon this data (Table 1). Only areas of erythema, bullae and desquamation are quantified because other skin changes are not typical of active GVHD rash. Upper GI symptoms must meet thresholds to diagnose GVHD: anorexia with associated weight loss, nausea and/or 2+ vomiting episodes/day lasting 3+ days. For lower GI GVHD we collect stool volumes excluding formed/mostly-formed stools. Unquantified episodes are counted at 200 ml per episode (3 ml/kg for children <50kg) based upon a chart review of 300 patients with post-BMT diarrhea from any cause. Non-GVHD rectal bleeding that results in flecks or streaks of blood in the stool are ignored for staging. We use the highest daily stool output in the 3 days prior to the diagnosis of lower GI GVHD to determine onset stage and, when available, a 3-day average stool volume for subsequent staging to smooth daily variability. We classify biopsy report interpretation into four standardized categories: Positive (unequivocal presence of GVHD), Equivocal (findings suggestive of GVHD, but the pathologist cannot confirm the diagnosis), Non-diagnostic (no abnormalities or subtle findings insufficient to determine etiology), and Non-GVHD etiology (definitive evidence of another diagnosis without concomitant features suggestive of GVHD). We then combine the biopsy interpretation with clinical decision making to assign an overall confidence level to the diagnosis of GVHD in each target organ (Table 2): Confirmed (positive biopsy, regardless of clinician treatment decision), Probable (GVHD diagnosis is sufficiently favored that treatment is given without a positive biopsy), Possible (symptoms present without a positive biopsy; not treated as GVHD), Negative (no symptoms or symptoms are present but a GVHD diagnosis is not entertained and a non-GVHD etiology is identified). Uniform clinical data collection is essential for future GVHD trials and requires application of clear guidance. While still subject to refinement, these guidelines, in use for 2 years by an international research consortium, are designed to be clear, easy to apply, and for clinical trial use. Table 1. GVHD Target Organ Staging Stage Skin (active erythema only) Liver (bilirubin) Upper GI Lower GI (stool output/day) 0 No active (erythematous) GVHD rash < 2 mg/dl No or intermittent nausea, vomiting or anorexia Adult: < 500 ml/day or <3 episodes/day Child: < 10 ml/kg/day or <4 episodes/day 1 Rash < 25% BSA 2-3 mg/dl Persistent nausea, vomiting or anorexia Adult: 500-999 ml/day or 3-4 episodes/day Child: 10 -19.9 ml/kg/day or 4-6 episodes/day 2 Rash 25 - 50% BSA 3.1-6 mg/dl - Adult: 1000-1500 ml/day or 5-7 episodes/day Child: 20 - 30 ml/kg/day or 7-10 episodes/day 3 Rash > 50% BSA 6.1-15 mg/dl - Adult: >1500 ml/day or >7 episodes/day Child: > 30 ml/kg/day or >10 episodes/day 4 Generalized rash (>50% BSA) and bullous formation or desquamation > 5% BSA >15 mg/dl - Severe abdominal pain with or without ileus, or grossly bloody stool (volume independent) Table 2. Confidence Levels Pathologic evidence Clinician assessment Treatment for acute GVHD Comments Confirmed Unequivocal evidence of GVHD GVHD is the etiology for symptoms Not required GVHD is clearly present even if other etiologies co-exist simultaneously Probable Not required (includes equivocal and non-diagnostic biopsies) GVHD most likely etiology for symptoms Yes GVHD is most likely present but other etiologies may also explain the symptoms and there insufficient evidence to make a confirmed diagnosis Possible GVHD in differential diagnosis (but no treatment is being provided) No GVHD may be present, but other etiologies are favored Negative Unequivocal evidence of a diagnosis other than GVHD (e.g., drug rash) GVHD is not considered as an explanation for the symptoms No and the symptoms resolve without GVHD treatment A "negative" biopsy (e.g., normal skin) is not unequivocal evidence of a diagnosis other than GVHD Disclosures Devine: Genzyme: Research Funding. Chen:Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Porter:Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Levine:Novartis: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Aortic stenosis-associated acquired von Willebrand syndrome (AS-AVWS) is caused by an accelerated degradation of the highest molecular weight von Willebrand factor (VWF) multimers (HMWM). We recently reported that the severity of the HMWM loss correlates with the severity of AS and patients’ bleeding tendency (Am J Cardiol, 2013;111:374-81). As for the missing HMWM, it is still uncertain if they are cleared from circulation or redistributed with medium-low MWMs, which can be assessed by VWF propeptide (Pro)/antigen (Ag) ratio. Besides the tedious VWF multimer analysis, it is uncertain if VWF activity by immunoturbidic method (Lx)/ Ag ratio or VWF collagen binding activity (CBA)/Ag ratio can be used as a screening test to predict AS-AVWS. It has been speculated in the literature that VWF:CBA is more sensitive than VWF:Lx for detecting a HMWM loss. Our goal was to exam the laboratory characteristics of various VWF tests in evaluating AS-AVWS and the potential mechanism of HMWM loss. Method: Sixty-six patients (between years 2010-2012, 43% male) with varying degrees of AS (16 mild, 20 moderate, and 30 severe) and separate 21 patients who had aortic valve replacement were assessed with VWF:Ag, VWF:Lx, VWF:CBA, platelet function analyzer collagen plus adenosine diphosphate (PFA-CADP), VWF multimer analysis and multimer ratio by densitometry (Am J Cardiol, 2013;111:374-81) after their echocardiography. The clinical endpoints of this study are AS severity measured by mean gradient (MG) by echocardiography and clinically significant bleeding. Statistical analyses including Spearman rank correlation test, estimation of the area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were performed. Results: VWF:Lx and VWF:CBA had strong correlation (Spearman r=0.94, P<0.001), and the correlation of VWF:CBA/Ag and VWF:Ltx/Ag was 0.49, p<0.001). As previously published, in patients with AS, MG correlated with VWF:Lx/Ag (Spearman r = -0.41, p <0.001), PFA-CADP (r = 0.49, p <0.001), and VWF multimer ratio (r = -0.76, p <0.001). MG also correlated with VWF:CBA/Ag (r= -0.38, p=0.002), but not with VWF: Pro/Ag (r=-0.20, p=0.12). Among AS and AVR patients, the area under the ROC curve for detection of the loss of HMWM was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.80-0.95) by VWF multimer ratio, 0.76 (95% CI: 0.65-0.86) by PFA-CADP, 0.70 (95% CI: 0.58-0.82) by VWF:CBA/Ag ratio, 0.67 (95% CI: 0.56-0.70) by VWF:Lx/Ag ratio, and 0.53 (95% CI: 0.41-0.65) by VWF:Pro/Ag . In addition to previously published results, clinically significant bleeding, in 14% of AS patients, was not associated with VWF:CBA/Ag (p=0.25) or VWF:Pro/Ag ratio (p=0.83). VWF: CBA/Ag ratio was significantly lower in patients with severe AS (MG > 40 mmHg) compared to AVR patients (median: 0.84 vs. 1.06, p<0.001), while there was no evidence of a difference in VWF:Pro/Ag (p=0.45). Conclusion: HMWM losses are highly prevalent in patients with moderate to severe AS. Of the VWF tests, PFA-CADP and VWF multimer analysis and ratio had the highest predictive ability for AS-AVWS followed by VWF:CBA/Ag and VWF:Lx/Ag. The VWF:CBA is not overly superior than VWF:Lx for predicting a HMWM loss. The normal VWF:Pro/Ag suggests that AS-AVWS is different from other types of AVWS due to accelerated clearance of HMWM. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Abstract 3841 Introduction: The International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) has recently been revised (IPSS-R) to capture more inclusive cytogenetic characterization, more stringent blast description, and more detailed cytopenia assignments. To validate the IPSS-R in a prospective cohort of patients, we compared IPSS and IPSS-R categorization within a group of newly diagnosed MDS patients in a prospective population-based epidemiologic study in Minnesota. Methods: We identified all newly diagnosed MDS cases in Minnesota between the ages of 20 and 85 years from April 1, 2010 to April 2012. Our process includes rapid case identification by the Minnesota Cancer Surveillance System (MCSS), patient contact and enrollment, central medical review including: 1) independent review by two hematopathologists to confirm diagnosis and WHO subclassification; 2) independent cytogeneticist's review for classification as defined by IPSS and IPSS-R; and 3) medical chart review with prospective calculation of IPSS, IPSS-R, and WPSS by a an oncologist. Results: Classification of the 128 patients by IPSS versus IPSS-R is shown (Table) Kendall's Tau = 0.77 In this comparative classification, IPSS-R scoring refined the MDS prognostic risk groups. Low IPSS remained low risk in the IPSS-R spanning the Very Low and Low groups, while all high risk IPSS remained in the Very High risk group in the IPSS-R. However, those in the INT-1 and INT-2 IPSS categories were inconsistently reclassified in the IPSS-R. INT-1 IPSS spanned from Very Low to High and INT-2 IPSS spanned from Intermediate to Very High in the IPSS-R. While reclassification of this prospective cohort resembles results in the IPSS-R reports, ongoing follow-up will be needed to determine if the survival and AML progression measures are reproducible. Conclusion: Until molecular data are available to refine future prognostic scoring systems, the IPSS-R enhances our prognostic risk stratification abilities and is applicable to the general MDS population. As treatment decisions are based on this initial prognostic risk assessment, the more diverse differentiation of risk within the IPSS-R will directly refine prognosis and impact decisions on therapy. Disclosures: Miller: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Coronado Bioscience: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.