Citations

Abstract Introduction DLBCL is the most common lymphoid neoplasm in adults (Swerdlow 2016). While durable CRs are achieved in approximately 70% of patients (pts) with frontline RCHOP therapy (Pfreundschuh 2008), pts with high-risk features often experience disease resistance or relapse. In Part 1 of an ongoing study, pts with high-intermediate or high risk DLBCL by international prognostic index (IPI) scores, regardless of CD30 expression by IHC, were treated with 1.2 or 1.8 mg/kg brentuximab vedotin (BV) combined with RCHOP. After 3 of the first 10 pts treated at 1.8 mg/kg BV+RCHOP developed Grade 3 peripheral neuropathy (per Standardized MedDRA Query [SMQ]), all pts enrolled subsequently received treatment with 1.2 mg/kg BV+RCHOP. Following completion of enrollment in Part 1, the protocol was amended to enroll a non-randomized portion of the study (Part 2) evaluating the safety and efficacy of 1.8 mg/kg BV+RCHP (Yasenchak 2015), followed by an open-label, randomized portion comparing BV+RCHP to RCHOP (Part 3). Initial results from Part 2 and updated results from Part 1 are reported here. Methods For Part 2 of the study, pts with CD30-expressing high-intermediate and high-risk DLBCL were treated with up to 6 cycles of 1.8 mg/kg BV+RCHP (NCT01925612). Key inclusion criteria were CD30 expression by IHC performed by a local pathology lab and standard IPI scores of 3-5 or age-adjusted IPI (aaIPI) scores of 2-3 (high-intermediate/high risk). CD30 expression was confirmed by a central pathology lab, although CD30 expression by local pathology lab was required for eligibility. Disease response was evaluated with PET/CT per Cheson 2007. Results At the time of analysis for this ongoing study, 11 pts in Part 2 were treated with BV+RCHP (7 male, 4 female; 22-78 yrs). Of these pts, 9 had high-intermediate risk (IPI 3, aaIPI 2) and 2 had high risk disease (IPI 4-5, aaIPI 3), 6 had Stage IV disease, and 6 had an ECOG score of 2. At the end of treatment, the overall response rate was 91% (9 CR, 1 PR); 1 pt had PD after Cycle 4. The most frequent (>20%) treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were alopecia and nausea (73% each); fatigue (64%); constipation and peripheral sensory neuropathy (55% each); neutropenia and throat irritation (36% each); and chills, diarrhea, headache, and stomatitis (27% each). Grade 3 or 4 AEs occurred in 8 pts and 5 pts had serious AEs, which included febrile neutropenia, bacteremia, nausea, pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, and vomiting. Peripheral sensory neuropathy occurred in 6 pts and all were Grade 1 or 2 events; no peripheral motor neuropathy AEs were reported. No AEs were fatal or led to discontinuation. One pt discontinued treatment after Cycle 4 due to disease progression. For the first 51 pts in Part 1, the progression-free survival (PFS) at 18 months for pts with CD30 expression (25 pts) or without detectable CD30 expression (24 pts) by IHC was 79% (95% CI: 57%, 91%) versus 58% (95% CI: 36%, 75%), respectively. Overall survival for pts was 92% (95% CI: 71%, 98%) versus 71% (95% CI: 48%, 85%), respectively. Ten pts had pre-existing peripheral neuropathy (per SMQ) at study entry. Treatment-emergent peripheral neuropathy (per SMQ) was observed in 75% of pts (38/51) who received BV+RCHOP; 55% of these pts (21/38) had resolution of all or some peripheral neuropathy events. Conclusions 1.8 mg/kg BV+RCHP is active as frontline treatment in CD30-expressing, high-intermediate/high risk DLBCL. When combined with RCHP, 1.8 mg/kg BV appears to be well-tolerated. The PFS and OS for pts with CD30-expression who received BV+RCHOP appear promising. The study is currently ongoing in pts with CD30-expressing high-intermediate/high risk DLBCL to assess the safety and activity of 1.8 mg/kg BV+RCHP versus standard RCHOP. Disclosures Halwani: Bristol Myers-Squibb: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Miragen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding. Yasenchak:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Farber:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Burke:Pfizer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses; Millenium: Consultancy. Fayad:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Holkova:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Knapp:Insys Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding. Kolibaba:Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; janssen: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding. Patel-Donnelly:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Yimer:Ariad Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Biotheranostics: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Equity Ownership; Kite Pharma: Equity Ownership; Clovis Oncology: Equity Ownership; Juno Therpeutics: Equity Ownership; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Smith:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Levy:Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Seetharam:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Belada:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Brooks:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Kingsley:Gilead: Equity Ownership; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Equity Ownership. Wagner-Johnston:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Ruffner:Forma Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sydnax: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership; Array Biopharma: Employment; Medivation: Employment. Bartlett:Gilead: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Approximately 75% of myelofibrosis (MF) patients develop anemia during evolution of the disease process predicting decreased survival. Previous studies exploring the effect of danazol in the treatment of anemia in MF demonstrate responses in anemia of 30-55%. Ruxolitinib has demonstrated improvement in MF related splenomegaly, symptom burden, and even survival yet improvements in cytopenias are uncommon. We designed a phase II multicenter pilot study to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of combination therapy with ruxolitinib and danazol in MF patients with anemia. Methods: This is a pre-planned interim analysis of a Simon optimum two-stage phase II trial designed to include a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 27 patients. Participants received ruxolitinib 10mg (plat >75 x10x9) BID or 5mg (plat <75 x10 x9) BID with danazol 200mg orally TID. Dose escalation was allowed after completion of 28 days for lack of response or for disease progression. Patients without progression were continued for 6 cycles at 56 days each. Treatment modifications were based on adverse events including thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, and elevation in creatinine and transaminases. Treatment responses were evaluated by the IWG-MRT response criteria (Blood 2013). Patient reported outcome questionnaires (MPN-SAF and EORTC QLQ-C30) were administered at baseline, prior to treatment cycles, and at study discontinuation. Results: Patients: Ten of the 12 evaluable patients enrolled (median age 70.5, range 57-78, M:F ratio 4:1) are included in this analysis. Eight patients had primary MF (PMF), 1 had post essential thrombocytosis (ET) MF, and 1 had post polycythemia vera (PV) MF. Jak2 V617F mutation was positive in 30%. At the time of enrollment 40% had received an erythrocyte transfusion in the last month and all were DIPSS Int-2 or higher. Median baseline hemoglobin was 9.0 g/dL (range 8.3 - 12.4). Median baseline platelet level was 172 x10 (9)/L (range 56 - 346). Most (90%) had received prior therapy and many were refractory to multiple lines of therapy prior to enrollment. Three (30%) patients had previously participated in a JAK inhibitor clinical trial. Tolerability: Among 6 patients who have completed treatment, median duration of treatment was 39 days (range 24-287) with treatment discontinuation due to progression of disease in 2 patients, allogeneic stem cell transplant in 1, alternative treatment in 1, unrelated adverse event (hyponatremia) in 1, and unrelated death (leukemic transformation with intracranial hemorrhage) in 1. Hematologic Grade 3 or > adverse events included anemia (60%), neutropenia (20%), and leukopenia (10%). Non-hematologic Grade 3 or > adverse events included electrolyte abnormalities (20%), edema (10%), infection (10%), and intracranial hemorrhage (10%). Efficacy: Treatment response per IWG-MRT response criteria included stable disease (SD) in 8/10 (80%), clinical improvement in 1/10 (10%), and progressive disease (PD) in 1 (10%). The median change in hemoglobin and platelet count from baseline was -0.05 g/dL (range -0.5 - 1.8) and 28.5 x10(9)/L (range -143 – 118) respectively, however 4/10 (40%) and 7/10 (70%) had improvement at some point during treatment in level of anemia and/or thrombocytopenia. The median follow-up time was 2 months (range 0.9-9.4). Among 6 patients with a baseline and at least one post-baseline MPN-SAF TSS, 2/6 (30%) of patients had at least a 10-point (clinically meaningful) improvement, with 1 of the 2 achieving the stricter 50% improvement from baseline. Responses might have been confounded due to impact of prior therapies. Conclusions: On interim analysis, ruxolitinib and danazol combination therapy demonstrates modest additional clinical benefit, however in a group of exceedingly high risk MF patients with significant anemia and prior single agent JAK inhibitor failures. Preliminary data suggests improvement in anemia and/or thrombocytopenia in some treated patients however only one clinical improvement per IWG-MRT criteria was observed. Combination therapy was well tolerated with no major incremental toxicity attributable to the addition of danazol. Maturation of data is needed to fully evaluate efficacy of ruxolitinib and danazol combination therapy prior to continuation of accrual. Disclosures Mascarenhas: Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Research Funding. Reeder:Millennium, Celgene, Novartis: Research Funding. Tibes:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Mesa:Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Ns Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; Cti: Research Funding.

Introduction: Non-endemic Burkitt lymphoma (BL) is a rare and highly aggressive B-cell malignancy, of whom a substantial number are adolescents and young adults (AYAs). In this particular group of patients, the balance between efficacy and long-term toxicities is of major concern, due to the long expected remaining lifetime. In this study, we investigated the outcomes for AYA patients treated with intensive immunochemotherapy. Patients and methods: Patients were identified through queries to clinic based and population-based lymphoma registries from six countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and USA). All diagnoses were confirmed by local investigators; patients with classical BL histology plus detectable MYC translocation, were included. Patients between 18 and 39 years of age at diagnosis treated with intensive immunochemotherapy (DA-EPOCH-R or more intensively) were evaluated in pre-specified age groups. All treatment protocols included rituximab. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from diagnosis until death from any cause or censoring, while event-free survival (EFS) was defined as the time from diagnosis until unplanned re-treatment, progression/relapse, death, or censoring, whichever came first. Response evaluation was assessed using established response criteria based on CT and/or PET/CT imaging. Survival curves were computed using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. The cumulative incidence of relapse in patients reaching complete remission (CR) or CR unconfirmed (CRu) was computed by Aalen-Johansen estimator. The 5-year restricted loss of lifetime (RLOL) was defined as the area between the patient and general population survival curves until 5-years. The general population survival was retrieved from publicly available lifetables stratified on age, sex, calendar year, and country. Results: In total, 108 AYA BL patients were included. The median age was 30 years, ranging between 18 and 39 and 82% were male. The majority had advanced stage disease (Ann Arbor stage III-IV, 76%), extranodal involvement (87%), and elevated LDH (67%). Seven patients (6%) had CNS involvement at the time of diagnosis. The chemotherapy regimens used were CODOX-M/IVAC (51%), BFM/GMALL (34%), hyper-CVAD (7%), DA-EPOCH (5%), and others (3%). Among 74 patients for whom data on tumor lysis were available, 10 (14%) developed clinical tumor lysis upon start of chemotherapy, all presenting with advanced stage and extranodal disease. The response rate was 91% (89 in CR/CRu and 2% in partial remission). At a median follow-up of 53 months, 15 had an event and 10 died. The 2-year OS and EFS for the total population was 92% (87-97%, Figure 1) and 88% (82-94%), respectively. For 13 patients aged 18-21 2-year OS and EFS were both 100%, while 2-year OS and EFS for 43 patients aged 22-30 were 98% (93-100%) and 93% (85-100%), respectively. The 2-year OS and EFS for patients aged 31-39 were 86% (76-96%) and 80% (69-91%), respectively. For patients in CR/CRu and available date of response evaluation, the 2-year post-remission OS was 99% (97-100%) and the 2-year relapse risk was 2% (0-5%), with no relapses after 6 months. Compared to the general population, the RLOL was 0.8 months (-0.5-2.2 months). Nine patients did not respond to primary treatment (SD or PD), all which belonged to the age group 31-40 years (P<0.001 versus age group 18-30 years). The oldest age group had an inferior OS compared to younger patients (P=0.008), largely due to non-responders having poor subsequent survival with a 1-year OS of 33%. Conclusion: The outcomes of AYA BL patients following intensive immunochemotherapy are excellent with high remission rates and low risk of relapse in general. However, even among young patients age remained prognostic, with patients 31 years or older having inferior OS and lower response rate to first-line treatment. In patients achieving CR, survival was similar to that of the general population over the median follow-up of 4.5 years, illustrating the need to focus on survivorship issues in these individuals. Figure 1: Overall survival for BL patients following intensive immunochemotherapy for all patients and for age groups (18-21, 22-30, and 31-39 years). Figure 1 Disclosures Jørgensen: Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Holte:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory board. Molin:Roche Holding AG: Honoraria; Merck & Co., Inc.: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Ekstroem Smedby:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Grant funding, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Grant funding, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Other: Grant funding, Research Funding. Song:Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Gerrie:Lundbeck, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cheah:Roche, Janssen, MSD, Gilead, Loxo Oncology, Acerta, BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Other: Travel expenses; Celgene, Roche, Abbvie: Research Funding. El-Galaly:Roche: Employment, Other: Travel support; Takeda: Other: Travel support.

Background: Guadecitabine is a next generation subcutaneous (SC) hypomethylating agent (HMA) resistant to degradation by cytidine deaminase which results in prolonged in vivo exposure to the active metabolite decitabine. We conducted a phase 2 study of guadecitabine in 102 Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS), and Chronic Myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) patients. International guidelines recommend a minimum of 4 to 6 cycles of HMA treatment to gain maximum benefit, but some suggest that treatment may not be beneficial if no response was observed after 4 cycles. No prospective studies have confirmed the correlation between an HMA number of cycles with response and survival using landmark methodology. We present here the results of landmark response and survival analyses based on number of cycles and whether patients had an objective response or not. M ethods: Landmark response based on 2006 IWG criteria, and overall survival (OS) analyses for patients alive at or beyond month 3 and month 5 (time of planned start of cycle 4 and cycle 6 respectively) were conducted. Objective response (OR) was defined as patients who had Complete Response (CR), Partial Response (PR), marrow (m)CR, or Hematological Improvement (HI). Landmark OS was compared between patients who received at least 4 or 6 cycles and those who did not. The landmark methodology avoids the bias of early deaths before cycles 4 and 6 attributing a survival benefit in those who did not die early and were able to get more cycles. We also compared the result in responding and non-responding patients to see if survival benefit was restricted to responding patients only. Results: The study completed enrolment with 102 patients: 53 patients after HMA failure (relapsed/refractory or r/r), and 49 HMA-naive patients (Treatment Naïve or TN) with a median follow up for the entire study of 3.2 years (IQR 2.9-3.5 years). Median age was 71 and 72 years for TN MDS/CMML and r/r MDS/CMML patients respectively. Median OS was 23.4 months (m) for TN MDS/CMML patients and 11.7 m for r/r MDS/CMML patients. Of the 102 patients treated, 37 patients (36.3%) and 58 (56.9%) received less than 4 and 6 cycles respectively. The landmark analysis population was 91 patients for the 4-cycle analysis and 87 patients for the 6-cycle analysis. In those patients, the primary reasons for treatment discontinuation before cycle 4 or 6 respectively were patient decision (9.8% and 11.8%), and investigator decision (5.9% and 9.8%) while early progression accounted for 3.9% and 10.8% of those patients. There were no major baseline characteristics difference between patients who received at least 4 and 6 cycles and those who did not in the patients included in the landmark analyses. In the landmark analysis, patients who received at least 4 cycles (65 patients) had an OR rate of 68% compared to 15% in 26 patients who received <4 cycles (p <0.0001) and median OS of 20.4 m compared to 15.2 m respectively (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.45-1.3, p 0.36). Those who received at least 6 cycles (44 patients) had an OR rate of 82% compared to 26% in 43 patients who received < 6 cycles (p<0.0001), and median OS of 23.8 m vs 13.6 m respectively (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.3-0.85, p 0.009). Results were consistent when r/r MDS/CMML and HMA-naïve MDS/CMML were analyzed separately. Landmark OS analysis also favored those who received guadecitabine for at least 4 or 6 cycles compared to those who received <4 and < 6 cycles even in the absence of objective response (OS HR of 0.82 and 0.42 respectively) but the sample size was small to show statistical significance (p 0.58 and 0.10 respectively) Summary/Conclusions: In a prospective phase 2 study of 102 MDS/CMML patients treated with the HMA guadecitabine, patients who were alive at the planned start of cycle 4 and cycle 6 did not continue treatment primarily because of patient or investigator decision in addition to early progression. Those who were alive and continued treatment for at least 4 or 6 cycles achieved highly significant objective response benefit compared to those who did not. Survival benefit was highly significant for those who received at least 6 cycles and was not restricted to patients who had an objective response. It is important to weigh reasons for treatment discontinuation carefully before discontinuing guadecitabine HMA treatment in MDS/CMML patients before 6 cycles to maximize response and survival benefit. Disclosures Savona: Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Patents & Royalties; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kantarjian:Takeda: Honoraria; Astex: Research Funding; Immunogen: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; Actinium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz Pharma: Research Funding. Roboz:Trovagene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Otsuka: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orsenix: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: 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; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eisai: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Argenx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amphivena: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. O'Connell:Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shionogi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yee:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Stock:Research to Practice: Honoraria; UpToDate: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Griffiths:Appelis Pharmaceuticals: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Abbvie, Inc.: Consultancy, PI on a clinical trial; Celgene, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex Phramaceuticals/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Appelis Pharmaceuticals: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Onconova Therapeutics: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Astex Phramaceuticals/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie, Inc.: Consultancy; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Persimmune: Consultancy; Boston Scientific: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Boston Scientific: Consultancy; Persimmune: Consultancy; Onconova Therapeutics: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Novartis Inc.: Consultancy; Celgene, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Partner Therapeutics: Consultancy; Novartis Inc.: Consultancy; Partner Therapeutics: Consultancy. Jabbour:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cyclacel LTD: Research Funding. Podoltsev:Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kartos Therapeutics: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Grant funding, Research Funding; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding. Su:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Garcia-Manero:AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Amphivena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding.

Background: Guadecitabine is a next generation subcutaneous (SC) hypomethylating agent (HMA) resistant to degradation by cytidine deaminase which results in prolonged in vivo exposure to the active metabolite decitabine. We conducted a phase 2 study of guadecitabine in 206 AML patients. International guidelines recommend a minimum of 4 to 6 cycles of HMA treatment to gain maximum benefit, but some suggest that treatment may not be beneficial if no response was observed after 4 cycles. No prospective studies have confirmed the correlation between an HMA number of cycles with response and survival using landmark methodology. We present here the results of landmark response and survival analyses based on number of cycles and whether patients had an objective response or not. M ethods: Landmark response (CR, CRi, or CRp based on 2003 IWG criteria, grouped together as composite CR or CRc), and overall survival (OS) analyses for patients alive at or beyond month 3 and month 5 (time of planned start of cycle 4 and cycle 6 respectively) were conducted. Landmark OS was compared between patients who received at least 4 or 6 cycles and those who did not. The landmark methodology avoids the bias of early deaths before cycles 4 and 6 attributing a survival benefit in those who did not die early and were able to get more cycles. We also compared the result in responding and non-responding patients to see if survival benefit was restricted to responding patients only. Results: The study completed enrolment with 206 AML patients: 103 patients (50%) for each of Treatment Naïve (TN) unfit for intensive chemotherapy, and relapsed/refractory (r/r) AML. Median age was 68.5y (range 22-92y), ECOG PS ≥2 in 26%, poor risk cytogenetics in 41%, secondary AML in 26%, and median baseline BM blasts % was 40% in the total AML population. 108 patients (52.4%), and 155 patients (75%) received <4 and <6 cycles respectively. The primary reasons for treatment discontinuation before 4 and 6 cycles respectively (% from the total population of 206 patients) were early progression (20.4, and 30.6%), and early death (12.6%, and 17%). However, 9.7% and 14% discontinued treatment before 4 or 6 cycles respectively as a result other less objective reasons such as patient decision, investigator decision, or adverse events which might have been manageable without treatment discontinuation. The landmark analysis population included 161 patients for 4-cycle analysis, and 133 for the 6-cycle analysis. In those patients, there were no major differences in baseline characteristics between those who received at least 4 or 6 cycles and those who did not. In the landmark analysis comparing those who received at least 4 cycles (97 patients) and those who did not (64 patients), CRc rate was 62% vs 25% (p < 0.0001) and median OS was 13.7 m vs 6.1 respectively (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.37-0.75, p 0.0003). In the landmark analysis comparing those who received at least 6 cycles (51 patients) and those who did not (82 patients) the CRc rate was 82.4% vs 35.4% (p < 0.0001), and median OS of 19.9 m vs 8.8 m respectively (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.27-0.64, p <0.0001). The results were consistent when TN and r/r AML patients were analyzed separately. More interestingly the landmark OS benefit in patients who received at least 4 or 6 cycles was also evident in patients who did not have an objective CRc. Patients with no CRc who received at least 4 cycles had a median OS of 8 m vs 5.4 m in those who did not (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40-0.98,p 0.04). Patients with no CRc who received at least 6 cycles had a median OS of 12.9 vs 8 m in those who did not (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17-0.94, p 0.03). Summary/Conclusions: In a prospective phase 2 study of 206 TN and r/r AML patients treated with the HMA guadecitabine, patients who were alive at or beyond 3 and 5 months who continued treatment for at least 4 or 6 cycles respectively achieved a highly significant response and survival benefit compared to those who discontinued treatment before cycle 4 or 6. The survival benefit was evident even in patients who did not have an objective response. Reasons for treatment discontinuation should be weighed carefully before stopping HMA treatment with guadecitabine before 4 or 6 cycles in AML patients to maximize response and survival benefit. Failure to achieve an objective response after 4 cycles should not be a reason for treatment discontinuation as long as patient can still benefit. Disclosures Yee: MedImmune: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Roboz:AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amphivena: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Argenx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eisai: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: 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; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orsenix: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Otsuka: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Trovagene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. O'Connell:BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shionogi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Griffiths:Boston Scientific: Consultancy; Boston Scientific: Consultancy; Abbvie, Inc.: Consultancy; Persimmune: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Novartis Inc.: Consultancy; Novartis Inc.: Consultancy; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Appelis Pharmaceuticals: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Partner Therapeutics: Consultancy; Appelis Pharmaceuticals: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Onconova Therapeutics: Other: PI on a clinical trial; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie, Inc.: Consultancy, PI on a clinical trial; Celgene, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova Therapeutics: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Partner Therapeutics: Consultancy; Astex Phramaceuticals/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Persimmune: Consultancy; Celgene, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex Phramaceuticals/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding. Stock:Daiichi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Research to Practice: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UpToDate: Honoraria. Garcia-Manero:Amphivena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Savona:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Patents & Royalties; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ravandi:Macrogenix: Consultancy, Research Funding; Selvita: Research Funding; Cyclacel LTD: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Menarini Ricerche: Research Funding; Xencor: Consultancy, Research Funding. Daver:Astellas: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; NOHLA: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; NOHLA: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy; Hanmi Pharm Co., Ltd.: Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Hanmi Pharm Co., Ltd.: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Jabbour:AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cyclacel LTD: Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Su:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Kantarjian:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Actinium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Immunogen: Research Funding; Jazz Pharma: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Pathogenic sequence variants (PSV) in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) are associated with increased risk and severity of prostate cancer. We evaluated whether PSVs in BRCA1/2 were associated with risk of overall prostate cancer or high grade (Gleason 8+) prostate cancer using an international sample of 65 BRCA1 and 171 BRCA2 male PSV carriers with prostate cancer, and 3,388 BRCA1 and 2,880 BRCA2 male PSV carriers without prostate cancer. PSVs in the 3′ region of BRCA2 (c.7914+) were significantly associated with elevated risk of prostate cancer compared with reference bin c.1001-c.7913 [HR = 1.78; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.25–2.52; P = 0.001], as well as elevated risk of Gleason 8+ prostate cancer (HR = 3.11; 95% CI, 1.63–5.95; P = 0.001). c.756-c.1000 was also associated with elevated prostate cancer risk (HR = 2.83; 95% CI, 1.71–4.68; P = 0.00004) and elevated risk of Gleason 8+ prostate cancer (HR = 4.95; 95% CI, 2.12–11.54; P = 0.0002). No genotype–phenotype associations were detected for PSVs in BRCA1. These results demonstrate that specific BRCA2 PSVs may be associated with elevated risk of developing aggressive prostate cancer. Significance: Aggressive prostate cancer risk in BRCA2 mutation carriers may vary according to the specific BRCA2 mutation inherited by the at-risk individual.

Abstract Supraventricular tachycardia is a common arrhythmia in pregnancy. During labor and delivery, neuraxial analgesia is important to prevent arrhythmia recurrence. We present the case of a 27-year-old gravida 2 para 1 woman at 35 weeks’ gestation presenting with supraventricular tachycardia that converted to normal sinus rhythm with adenosine. To prevent recurrence of the arrhythmia, an early epidural was provided during labor to minimize catecholamine release.

Abstract Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common and aggressive primary brain tumor. Median survival is 15 months despite surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. Immunotherapy is promising but GBM-mediated immunosuppression remains a barrier. Recently, extracellular vesicles (EVs) have been implicated in GBM-mediated immunosuppression through expression of the immune checkpoint molecule PD-L1. Data from our group has suggested this is predominantly through induction of immunosuppressive monocytes including myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) and non-classical monocytes (NCMs). PD-L1 expression is increased in most nucleated cells following IFN-γ exposure. We, therefore, sought to determine if IFN-γ exposure would result in super-induction of immunosuppressive GBM EVs. EVs were harvested in vitro from matched differentiated and stem-like human GBM cell lines +/- IFN-γ. IFN-γ exposure did not alter EV production or expression of common EV markers but increased PD-L1 expression in EVs from differentiated but not stem-like GBM cells. In keeping with our earlier findings, no direct inhibition of T cell proliferation by stem-like or differentiated GBM EVs was observed regardless of IFN-γ exposure or PD-L1 expression. In contrast, differentiated but not stem-like GBM cell EVs induced MDSC and NCM differentiation from normal monocytes. This was increased following IFN-γ exposure and was dependent upon PD-L1 expression. Monocytes exposed to differentiated but not stem-like GBM cell EVs inhibited T cell proliferation in a similar manner (increased with IFN-γ exposure, decreased with PD-L1 knockdown). Thus, IFN-γ exposure results in super-induction of immunosuppressive EVs from differentiated but not stem-like GBM cells that increase MDSC and NCM differentiation in normal monocytes and increase their ability to inhibit T cell proliferation. These effects are dependent upon PD-L1 up-regulation induced by IFN-γ. This may be an important mechanism GBMs utilize to suppress anti-tumor T cell responses that are typically accompanied by increased IFN-γ expression.