Citations

Abstract Background Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is common in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). It is not well understood if OSA impacts cardiovascular outcomes in patients with AF. Purpose To investigate patient characteristics and major adverse cardiovascular and neurological events (MACNE) in patients with AF and OSA. Methods Using the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF I) and ORBIT-AF II we compared the adjusted risk of the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke/transient ischemic attack/non-CNS embolism (stroke/SE), and new-onset heart failure (MACNE) according to the presence or absence of OSA, using multivariable adjusted Cox proportional hazard models. Secondary outcomes were the individual components of MACNE. Results Among 22,760 patients with AF, there were 4,045 (17.8%) with OSA at baseline. Median follow-up time was 1.5 (IQR: 1–2.2) years. OSA patients were younger (median [IQR] 68 [61–75] years vs. 74 [66–81] years, were more likely to be male (70.7% vs. 55.3%), and had markedly increased body mass index (BMI) (median 34.6 kg/m2 [29.8–40.2] vs. 28.7 kg/m2 [25.2–33.0]). Those with OSA had a higher prevalence of diabetes (39.2% vs. 25.2%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (20% vs. 12%), heart failure (32.2% vs. 25.1%), and hyperlipidemia (73.2% vs. 66.7%). After adjustment, the presence of OSA was significantly associated with MACNE (HR: 1.16 [95% CI: 1.03–1.31], p=0.011) [Figure]. Stroke/SE was higher in patients with OSA (HR: 1.38 [95% CI 1.12–1.70], p=0.003). Addition of OSA to a model containing the CHA2DS2-VASc risk factors slightly improved discrimination for stroke/SE: CHA2DS2-VASc risk factors alone C-index (Standard Error) was 0.6867 (0.0125) vs. CHA2DS2-VASc risk factors plus OSA 0.6876 (0.0124), p=0.022. Figure 1. Hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals and event rates for the association between obstructive sleep apnea and major adverse cardiovascular and neurological events combined and separately. Abbreviations: OSA; obstructive sleep apnea MACNE; major adverse cardiovascular and neurological events, CV; cardiovascular, TIA; transient ischemic attack. Conclusion One in five patients with AF in community practice had OSA. The presence of OSA was associated with higher risk of MACNE and stroke/SE. Addition of OSA to CHA2DS2-VASc risk factors only slightly improved discrimination for the occurrence of stroke. Acknowledgement/Funding The Danish Heart Foundation, T32 NIH Grant HL079896. The ORBIT-AF registry is sponsored by Janssen.

Abstract Despite its efficacy, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CART) is limited by the development of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity (NT). While CRS is related to extreme elevation of cytokines and massive T cell expansion, the exact mechanisms for NT have not yet been elucidated. Preliminary studies suggest that NT might be mediated by myeloid cells that cross the blood brain barrier. This is supported by correlative analysis from CART19 pivotal trials where CD14+ cell numbers were increased in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients that developed severe NT (Locke et al, ASH 2017). Therefore, we aimed to investigate the role of GM-CSF neutralization in preventing CRS and NT after CART cell therapy via monocyte control. First, we investigated the effect of GM-CSF blockade on CART cell effector functions. Here, we used the human GM-CSF neutralizing antibody (lenzilumab, Humanigen, Burlingame, California) that has been shown to be safe in phase II clinical trials. Lenzilumab (10 ug/kg) neutralizes GM-CSF when CART19 cells are stimulated with the CD19+ Luciferase+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) cell line NALM6, but does not impair CART cell function in vitro. We have found that malignancy associated macrophages reduce CART proliferation. GM-CSF neutralization with lenzilumab results in enhanced CART cell antigen specific proliferation in the presence of monocytes. To confirm this in vivo, NOD-SCID-g-/- mice were engrafted with high disease burdens of NALM6 and treated with low doses of CART19 or control T cells (to induce tumor relapse), in combination with lenzilumab or isotype control antibody. The combination of CART19 and lenzilumab resulted in significant anti-tumor activity and overall survival benefit compared to control T cells (Fig 1A), similar to mice treated with CART19 combined with isotype control antibody, indicating that GM-CSF neutralization does not impair CART cell activity in vivo. This anti-tumor activity was validated in an ALL patient derived xenograft model. Next, we explored the impact of GM-CSF neutralization on CART cell related toxicities in a novel patient derived xenograft model. Here, NOD-SCID-g-/- mice were engrafted with leukemic blasts (1-3x106 cells) derived from patients with high risk ALL. Mice were then treated with high doses of CART19 cells (2-5x106 intravenously). Five days after CART19 treatment, mice began to develop progressive motor weakness, hunched bodies, and weight loss that correlated with massive elevation of circulating human cytokine levels. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of the brain during this syndrome showed diffuse enhancement and edema, associated with central nervous system (CNS) infiltration of CART cells and murine activated myeloid cells. This is similar to what has been reported in CART19 clinical trials in patients with severe NT. The combination of CART19, lenzilumab (to neutralize human GM-CSF) and murine GM-CSF blocking antibody (to neutralize mouse GM-CSF) resulted in prevention of weight loss (Fig 1B), decrease in critical myeloid cytokines (Fig 1C-D), reduction of cerebral edema (Fig 1E), enhanced leukemic disease control in the brain (Fig 1F), and reduction in brain macrophages (Fig 1G). Finally, we hypothesized that disrupting GM-CSF through CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing during the process of CART cell manufacturing would result in functional CART cells with reduced secretion of GM-CSF. We designed guide RNA targeting exon 3 of the GM-CSF gene and generated GM-CSFk/o CART19 cells. Our preliminary data suggest that these CARTs produce significantly less GM-CSF upon activation but continue to exhibit similar production of other cytokines and exhibit normal effector functions in vitro (Fig 1H). Using the NALM6 high tumor burden relapse xenograft model as described above, GM-CSFk/o CART19 cells resulted in slightly enhanced disease control compared to CART19 cells (Fig 1I). Thus, modulating myeloid cell behavior through GM-CSF blockade can help control CART mediated toxicities and may reduce their immunosuppressive features to improve leukemic control. These studies illuminate a novel approach to abrogate NT and CRS through GM-CSF neutralization that also potentially enhances CART cell functions. Based on these results, we have designed a phase II clinical trial using lenzilumab as a modality to prevent CART related toxicities in patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Disclosures Ahmed: Humanigen: Employment. Sahmoud:Humanigen: Employment. Durrant:Humanigen: Employment. Russell:Vyriad: Equity Ownership. Kay:Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Research Funding. Kenderian:Novartis: Patents & Royalties; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Humanigen: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Topoisomerase I is a nuclear enzyme that relaxes torsional strain in DNA by nicking one DNA strand, allowing rotation, then resealing the DNA backbone. This is an important enzyme in replication and transcription, and therefore has been targeted by anti-cancer agents such as camptothecins. These agents intercalate into DNA at the topoisomerase I active site and inhibit the religation step catalyzed by the enzyme, causing increased topoisomerase I-DNA complexes that impede advancing replication forks or transcription complexes, leading to DNA damage and cell death. Platinating agents also stabilize topoisomerase I-DNA covalent complexes. The topotecan/carboplatin combination has recently shown promise in combination with the PARP inhibitor veliparib in aggressive and transformed myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (K Pratz et al., Clin Cancer Res. 23:899, 2017). Given that both classes of agents have a narrow therapeutic window, it is important to try to predict the sensitivity/resistance of these agents in malignancies such as acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and transformed MPNs. Some of mechanisms of drug resistance that have been described are decreased numbers of drug-stabilized topoisomerase I-DNA complexes due to drug efflux, diminished topoisomerase I expression or topoisomerase I mutation. Thus, being able to detect and quantify these DNA-protein complexes may provide insight into drug sensitivity. Methods: Using a unique monoclonal antibody that detects topoisomerase I-DNA covalent complexes (A. Patel et al., Nucleic Acids Res. 44:2816, 2016), immunofluorescence techniques were used to quantify these topoisomerase I-DNA complexes in AML cell lines (SET2, HEL, K562, U937, ML2, MV-4-11, THP1, HL60, ML1, and Molm13) and clinical AML samples. To verify the fidelity of the anti-topoisomerase I-DNA covalent complex antibody (TopIcc), siRNA knockdown methods were utilized with confirmatory immunofluorescence and Western blotting. Slot blots were additionally used to assess the presence of these complexes in AML cell lines. Western blots were performed to assess topoisomerase I levels in AML cell lines. Topotecan drug sensitivity analysis was performed by using an MTS assay. Results: With treatment of the topoisomerase I inhibitor, topotecan, there was an increase in the percentage of leukemia cells positive for the topoisomerase I-DNA covalent complexes. The degree of increase in complexes varied across cell lines and patient samples. To ensure we were detecting TopIcc by immunofluorescence, we performed a topoisomerase-I siRNA knockdown to confirm the specificity of the antibody for TopIcc's. Slot blots on multiple AML cell lines confirmed the presence of topoisomerase-DNA covalent complexes. The Western blot of all the AML cell lines, ordered from low to high TopIcc revealed increasing amounts of topoisomerase I. The MTS assay revealed lower topotecan IC50 values in three of the cell lines with higher complex formation, including Molm13, ML1 and ML2 (IC50 6-8 nM compared to 13-46 nM in the other cell lines). Conclusions: Based on recent clinical results, there has been renewed interested in topoisomerase I inhibitors, especially for aggressive and transformed MPNs. Topoisomerase I-DNA complex repair/downregulation has been a hallmark of drug resistance to topoisomerase I inhibitors. Therefore, detecting and quantifying these complexes in treated samples has been hypothesized to provide insight into the drug sensitivity, which is particularly important in camptothecins and platinating agents given their narrow therapeutic windows. Immunodetection techniques using an anti-TopIcc antibody may help predict sensitivity of AML to topoisomerase I inhibitors and will be used as a correlative biomarker study in an upcoming phase II randomized study of topotecan/carboplatin with or without veliparib or placebo in advanced myeloproliferative disorders and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03289910). Disclosures Pratz: AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Research Funding; Boston Scientific: Consultancy; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding. Kaufmann:Mayo Clinic: Patents & Royalties: Co-inventor on a patent held by Mayo Clinic for the use of the anti-TOP1cc antibody as a diagnostic reagent.

Abstract Introduction: Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) is the only curative therapy for myelofibrosis (MF). Consideration of HCT is recommended by international working groups and national guidelines for MF patients (pts) age <70 with intermediate-1 with adverse indicators, intermediate-2 or high-risk disease by the Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) for MF- a recommendation made in the absence of clear data indicating the optimal timing of HCT for MF. In this large multicenter retrospective study, we analyze overall survival in MF pts treated with and without HCT. Methods: Disease characteristics, treatments, and outcome data from MF pts receiving non-transplant therapy at 14 US academic medical centers between 2000-2014 were retrospectively collected. MF pts who underwent HCT were identified from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). The Cox proportional hazards model was used. The reference time point (time zero) was time of referral for the non-transplant (non-HCT) arm and the time of transplant for the HCT arm. The main effect variable (HCT vs. non-HCT) violated the proportionality assumption where comparing to non-HCT, mortality was higher with HCT in early time period from time zero but then was lower in late time period; therefore, the comparison is presented as early time period and late time period. The Cox model identified 14 months from time zero as the ideal cut point to define early and late time periods. The proportionality assumption is satisfied within each of these two periods. Results: A total of 1377 and 551 pts were included in the non-HCT and HCT arms, respectively (Table 1). In the overall cohort, survival was higher with non-HCT vs. HCT in early time period (relative risk [RR]: 0.34, P< .0001, Figure 1D), but in late time period survival was lower with non-HCT vs. HCT (RR: 2.37, P< 0.001) (Table 2). In the DIPSS low-risk MF group, while survival was higher with non-HCT vs. HCT in the early time period (RR: 0.19, P=0.007, Figure 1A), survival was lower with non-HCT in the late time period, but the latter did not reach statistical significance (RR: 1.45, P=0.39). In the DIPSS intermediate-1 risk group, a survival advantage was present with non-HCT treatments vs. HCT in the early time period (RR: 0.27, P < .0001, Figure 1B), however survival was lower with non-HCT in the late time period (RR: 3.13, P < .0001). Similarly, in those with DIPSS intermediate-2 and high-risk MF, survival advantage was observed with non-HCT in the early time period (RR: 0.41, P< .0001, Figure IC), but survival was lower with non-HCT in the late time period (RR: 2.82, P < .0001). Conclusion: A long-term survival advantage with transplant was observed for pts with intermediate-1 or higher risk MF, but at the cost of potential early mortality. The magnitude of benefit increased as DIPSS risk score increased. Although this retrospective study has limitations, the results have an impact on clinical practice by suggesting that transplantation could be considered earlier in the disease course and supports the recommendation for consideration of HCT in the setting of intermediate-1 risk MF. Disclosures Gowin: Incyte: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Board, Speakers Bureau. Verstovsek:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy; Italfarmaco: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ali:Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gupta:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Gerds:Celgene: Consultancy; Apexx Oncology: Consultancy; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Guadecitabine SC (SGI-110) is a dinucleotide next generation HMA resistant to degradation by cytidine deaminase resulting in extended in vivo exposure to its active metabolite decitabine. A Phase 1 established 60 mg/m2 QDx5 as the biologically effective dose (BED), and 90 mg/m2 QDx5 as the Maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in MDS patients given in 28-day cycles (Issa et al, 2015, Lancet Oncology). Phase 2 is conducted to evaluate dose response between the BED and MTD in both untreated MDS patients, and patients previously treated with other HMAs. M ethods: Int, or HR MDS, and CMML patients who were either treatment-naïve (TN) or relapsed/refractory to other HMAs (r/r) were randomized to either 60 mg/m2 or 90 mg/m2 QDx5 every 28 days. Efficacy was evaluated by the clinical responses of CR, PR, marrow CR (mCR), and Hematological Improvement (HI) based on the International Working Group Criteria 2006, as well as transfusion-independence, and overall survival (OS). Adverse events (AEs) were graded by the CTCAE v4 criteria. Results: The study completed target enrolment with 102 patients: 53 r/r MDS, and 49 TN MDS. Fifty three patients were randomized to 60 mg/m2 and 49 patients to 90 mg/m2 QDx5 with a median follow up of 3.2 years (IQR 2.8-3.5 years). Median age was 72 and 71 years for r/r and TN MDS respectively. Most baseline patient characteristics were well balanced between the 2 treatment dose groups except that more CMML patients were randomized to the 60 mg/m2 group (28%) vs. 14% in the 90 mg/m2 group, and more patients with baseline BM blasts >5% were in the 90 mg/m2 group (67%) vs. 38% in the 60 mg/m2 group. Most patients were RBC transfusion-dependent at baseline (57%). In the r/r MDS cohort, most patients (58%) received their last HMA treatment <3 month before enrolment, and most of them received ≥6 months of prior HMA treatment (77%). Median number of treatment cycles was 5 for both r/r and TN MDS (range 1-37 in r/r MDS and 1-49 in TN MDS). In the TN MDS cohort CR was achieved in 11 (22%) of patients with no major difference between the 2 dose groups (19% in the 60 mg/m2 group vs 27% in the 90 mg/m2 group). Overall CR+mCR was achieved in 18 patients (37%) in TN MDS patients and median OS was 23.4 months. In the r/r MDS cohort, CR was achieved in 4% of patients in each of the 2 dose groups. Overall CR+mCR in the r/r MDS cohort was achieved in 17 patients (32%), with a median duration of response of 7.9 months, and median OS of 11.7 months. No significant difference in response or OS between the 2 dose groups was observed. In patients who were RBC transfusion-dependent at baseline, transfusion independence for at least 8 weeks was achieved in 42% of TN MDS, and 15% in r/r MDS patients. In the overall population of 102 TN and r/r MDS patients there were no major differences in OS based on DNMT3A or TET2 mutation status while patients with TP53 mutations had worse median OS (7.4 months) compared to those without TP53 mutations (22.6 months). Other baseline prognostic factors for worse OS were BM blasts >5%; RBC transfusion-dependence; IPSS High Risk; and ECOG Performance Status of >1. Overall incidence of Grade ≥3 AEs regardless of relationship to treatment was reported in 83 vs. 96% for 60 and 90 mg/m2 dose groups respectively. There was a slightly higher but non-significant difference in Grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia (57 vs 41.5%); neutropenia (51 vs 39.6%); febrile neutropenia (43% vs 32%); and pneumonia (32.7 vs. 26.4%) for the 90 mg/m2 compared to 60 mg/m2 dose group. Early 30, 60, and 90-day all-cause mortality was observed in 0, 3.7%, and 5.7% in the 60 mg/m2 dose group respectively; and in 2%, 4%, and 12% in the 90 mg/m2 dose group respectively. Conclusions: Guadecitabine at both dose groups is a well-tolerated novel HMA with clinical activity in the treatment of both TN and r/r Int and HR MDS, and CMML patients. In TN MDS patient CR rate of 22% and median OS of 23.4 months compare well with first generation HMA efficacy (Fenaux et al, 2009, Lancet Oncology). Activity in r/r MDS who previously failed prior HMAs is particularly promising (CR+mCR in 32% of patients with median duration of response and overall survival of almost 8 and 12 months respectively). A phase 3 trial (ASTRAL-3) of guadecitabine vs Physician Treatment Choice in r/r MDS and CMML patients previously treated with azacitidine or decitabine is actively enrolling (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02907359). Disclosures Ritchie: NS Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; ARIAD Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding. Savona:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kropf:Celegene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Daver:Pfizer: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Consultancy; ARIAD: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Kiromic: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding. Jabbour:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Yee:Celgene, Novartis, Otsuka: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agensys, Astex, GSK, Onconova, Genentech/Roche: Research Funding. Stock:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Griffiths:Alexion Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene, Inc: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis, Inc.: Research Funding; Pfizer, Inc.: Research Funding. Podoltsev:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Daiichi Snakyo: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding. Berdeja:Genentech: Research Funding; Bluebird: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Glenmark: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Poseida Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Naim:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Hao:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Roboz:Orsenix: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: To address the current and long-term unmet health needs of the growing population of patients diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and NHL survivors, we established the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohort study (NCT02736357; https://leocohort.org/) with recruitment at eight centers (Cornell University, Emory University, Mayo Clinic, MD Anderson, University of Iowa, University of Miami, University of Rochester, and Washington University). Here we report on the first two years of enrollment. Methods: All patients ≥18 years with NHL (exclusive of chronic lymphocytic leukemia) newly diagnosed within 183 days of enrollment are eligible. LEO reviews all pathology diagnoses; annotates and harmonizes all cases with clinical, epidemiologic, pathology and treatment data; builds a NHL tumor bank that includes an H&E slide, a formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue sample and extracted tumor DNA and RNA; collects peripheral blood and banks DNA, serum, plasma and buffy coat in a central biorepository; and prospectively follows patients regularly to ascertain disease progression/relapse, retreatment, transformation, second cancers, survival, updated exposures, and patient-reported outcomes. We examined the demographics, clinical characteristics, and NHL subtypes for patients enrolled in the first two years (2015-2017) in LEO Cohort and compared these characteristics to population-based registry data from the United States Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program for 2011-2015. We also examined baseline body mass index (BMI), comorbidities and quality of life (QOL) measured with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) scores (0-100 scale) overall and by NHL subtype that were collected in LEO but not available in SEER or any other large, prospective US NHL cohort. Results: From 2015-2017, LEO enrolled 3244 NHL patients across 47 states (Figure) with a median age at diagnosis of 62 years (range, 18-94 years) and 55.9% male. Based on self-identified race/ethnicity, 85% of the participants were White, 7.4% were Black/African American, 2.6% were Asian, and 3.5% other or more than one race; 9.9% were Hispanic (regardless of race). The most common subtypes were diffuse large B-cell (DLBCL, 33.9%), follicular (FL, 22.2%), mantle cell (MCL, 9.3%), marginal zone (MZL, 8.3%), T-cell (TCL, 10.9%), and all other NHL subtypes (other NHL, 15.3%). These distributions were all within 5% of SEER data, except that 6.8% of participant in LEO were in the age 80+ years group compared to 18.5% in SEER (Table). The overall prevalence of self-reported comorbidities at enrollment was 13.5% for heart disease (range, 12.1% for FL to 16.6% for MCL), 8.8% for diabetes (range, 7.1% for FL to 9.8% for DLBCL), 4.6% for osteoporosis (range, 3.0% for MCL to 6.3% for MZL), and 5.9% for autoimmune disease (range, 2.0% for MCL to 12.6% for MZL). The median BMI was 27.9 kg/m2 (range, 26.7 kg/m2 for TCL to 28.3 kg/m2 for MZL). A total of 2151 participants completed the FACT-G with a median score of 78.7 (range, 75.9 for TCL to 83.3 for MZL). Complete IPI data were available on 2296 participants: 40.4% IPI 0-1, 32.7% IPI 2, 18.3% IPI 3, 8.7% IPI 4-5. Overall, 73.7% of participants were initially treated with systemic therapy (range, 40.0% for MZL and 91.8% for DLBCL); 14.5% were initially managed with observation (range, 1.4% DLBCL and 31.8% for FL); and 2.0% were initially manage with radiotherapy (range, 0.2% for MCL and 3.8% for DLBCL). Outcomes are being prospectively collected. Conclusions: LEO is a large and diverse cohort of newly diagnosed NHL patients and the first two years of enrollment reflects the broader United States NHL population. Enrollment is ongoing. This unique resource will enable examination of the interactions among a broad array of clinical and molecular factors and their impact on multiple outcomes, to improve prognostication, identify new approaches to improve outcomes and survivorship, and facilitate clinical trials using this infrastructure. Disclosures Flowers: Acerta: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/ Janssen: Consultancy; OptumRx: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; BeiGene: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Nastoupil:TG Therappeutics: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Juno: Honoraria. Kahl:Acerta: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Casulo:Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria. Friedberg:Bayer: Honoraria. Lossos:Affimed: Research Funding. Martin:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Leonard:Bayer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Biotest: Consultancy; United Therapeutics: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Bernal-Mizrachi:Kodikaz Therapeutic Solutions: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company: Research Funding. Maurer:Morphosys: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Cerhan:Nanostring: Research Funding; Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Follow-up is an integral part of hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) care which ensures accurate characterization of HCT-related outcomes as well as surveillance and intervention for complications. Despite the importance of follow-up of all HCT recipients at transplant centers, they may be lost to follow-up (LTFU). HCT recipients who are LTFU may be demographically or clinically distinct from HCT recipients who maintain regular center follow-up. Using population-based data from 17,550 adult and 4,279 pediatric HCT recipients from United States centers reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR), we characterize the incidence of, and predictors for, becoming LTFU. Methods The study included 2-year (yr) survivors of first allogeneic (10,367 adults and 3,865 children) or autologous (7,183 adults and 414 children) HCT for malignant and non-malignant disorders in the United States from 2002-2013 reported to the CIBMTR. LTFU was defined as a patient having missed 2 consecutive follow-up reporting periods. CIBMTR follow-up forms are collected annually for the first 6 yrs post-HCT and bi-annually thereafter. The cumulative incidence of LTFU HCT recipients was calculated. Marginal Cox models allowing adjustment for center effect were fit to evaluate risk factors for becoming LTFU among adults and pediatric allogeneic and autologous HCT survivors. Risk factors evaluated included: sociodemographic (age at HCT, sex, performance status, race, distance to center, income, health insurance, marital status) and disease/HCT-related (disease type, yr of HCT) factors. Results Among 2-yr allogeneic HCT survivors, the median age at the time of HCT was 49 yrs (range, 18-81) and 7 yrs (range, <1-18) for adult and pediatric recipients, respectively. Corresponding median follow-up was 75 months (mos) (range, 12-173) and 74 mos (range, 3-173). Health insurance coverage was public (23%) or private (64%) for adult recipients, and public (40%) or private (43%) for pediatric recipients. For 2-yr autologous HCT survivors, the median age at the time of HCT was 58 yrs (range, 18-82) and 4 yrs (range, <1-18) for the adult and pediatric recipients, respectively. Corresponding median follow-up was 76 mos (range, 3-174) and 73 mos (range, 6-173). Health insurance coverage was public (27%) or private (57%) for adult recipients, and public (48%) or private (39%) for pediatric recipients. The 10-year cumulative incidence of becoming LTFU among adult and pediatric allogeneic HCT recipients was 13% (95% CI, 12-14) and 25% (95% CI, 24-27), respectively. Among autologous HCT recipients, the 10-year cumulative incidence of becoming LTFU among adults and children was 15% (95% CI, 14-16) and 23% (95% CI, 19-28), respectively. (Figure 1) Among pediatric allogeneic HCT survivors, older age, non-white race, public or no insurance (referent: private), and earlier yr of HCT were significantly associated with increased LTFU risk. However, in adult allogeneic HCT survivors, younger age, non-malignant disease, public or no insurance (referent: private), living farther from the HCT center, and unmarried were significantly associated with higher risk of LTFU (Table 1). In pediatric autologous HCT survivors, males and Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL)/Hodgkin lymphoma patients (referent: central nervous system tumors) were significantly associated with higher risk of becoming LTFU (Table 1), whereas for adult autologous HCT survivors, older age and multiple myeloma (referent: NHL) were significantly associated with decreased risk of LTFU. Conclusions The incidence of LTFU is significantly higher in pediatric than adult patients, with no difference between autologous and allogeneic HCT patients, regardless of age. We identified risk factors for LTFU that differed by age and HCT donor type. A national, comprehensive, risk-based approach to long-term follow-up focusing on minimizing the attrition in high-risk groups such as adolescent and young adult-aged HCT survivors and HCT survivors with non-private health insurance is needed. Future studies incorporating patient reported outcomes may help describe reasons for lack of long-term follow-up. Collection of accurate and meaningful epidemiologic and clinical data from all survivors can help develop and refine strategies to improve long-term outcomes of this population. Disclosures Parsons: Seattle Genetics: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Given the established role of PD-1 in mediating immune suppression in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), we tested and reported the efficacy of PD-1 blocking antibody pembrolizumab in relapsed and transformed CLL patients. A selective response of pembrolizumab (~40%) in patients with RT, particularly after prior ibrutinib, was observed (Ding, Blood, 129:3419). Correlative analysis showed PD-1 expression in tumor B-cells of patients with RT and aggressive CLL after progression on ibrutinib. PD-1, an inhibitory receptor expressed on CLL T-cells, inhibits the immune synapse and cytotoxic T cell functions via the interactions with its ligands. However, the expression pattern and role of PD-1 in tumor B-cells is not well defined. In this study we investigated the functional implication of the PD-1 signaling axis in B-cell pathobiology in CLL and RT patients. Methods: 26 CLL-involved lymph node (LN) and 20 RT-involved LN were tested for PD-1 expression by immunohistochemistry (mouse clone NAT105, Abcam). For in vitro study, we checked PD-1 expression in 11 lymphoma cell lines and 1 CLL cell line by both flow cytometry and Western blot (WB) analysis. Effect of PD-1 knockdown using CRISPR/Cas9 system (Addgene) and over-expression of PD-1 using pLEX-lentiviral (Thermoscientific) or pRetro-retroviral (Clonetech) system were evaluated on pro-survival and apoptotic signaling pathways by Western blot analysis. Gene expression signatures in CLL and RT patients were also evaluated by Illumina-based RNA sequencing using FFPE-nodal tissue obtained by clinical biopsy (Tempus Labs; Chicago, IL). Results: The expression of PD-1 was significantly increased in RT-LN compared to CLL-LN. (mean ± SEM in RT vs. CLL, 30.6 ± 4.7 vs. 11.5 ± 2.8, p < 0.001). PD-1 expression was highest in patients with RT where the immediate prior CLL therapy was ibrutinib (Figure 1A). Among all cell lines tested for PD-1 expression, the expression of PD-1 by WB and flow was highest in Mino (mantle cell lymphoma line), followed by moderate expression in Jvm2 (B-PLL line) and Mec1 (CLL line), and very low-level expression in both Jeko-1 (B-NHL line) and lymphoma line 'Karpas299'. CRISPR/Cas9 mediated depletion of PD-1 in Mino cells inhibited constitutively active Akt, p70S6K and mTOR pathway, accompanied by significant downregulation of the anti-apoptotic proteins, Bcl-2, Mcl-1 and XIAP, but P-ERK1/2 was not affected. Constitutive lentiviral (pLEX-PD-1)-mediated overexpression of PD-1 in Jeko-1 and doxycycline regulated inducible retroviral (pRetro-PD-1) mediated overexpression of PD-1 in Karpas299 activated Akt, mTOR and p70S6K pathway. Overexpression of PD-1 in Jeko-1 significantly increased Bcl-2 and Mcl-1 and in Karpas299 increased Bcl-2, Mcl-1 and XIAP expression (Figure 1B). A parallel genetic analysis using RNA sequencing was performed on 5 nodal tissues involved by either RT or progressive CLL after these patients developed clinical progression after prior ibrutinib therapy. In all 5 patients, overexpression of PD-1 was associated with increased expression of Bcl-2 and mTOR regardless of the genetic mutations detected (including TP53, ATM, BTK, NOTCH1, XPO1, SF3B1, TET2 etc). However, in 2 patients who received prior chemoimmunotherapy, similar overexpression of gene signature was not observed by RNA sequencing analysis, alternative pathways including Met or NFkB overexpression was detected. Given these clinical and laboratory findings, we have treated 2 RT patients with a combination of BTK and Bcl-2 inhibitors (ibrutinib and venetoclax, respectively) whose CLL transformed after prior ibrutinib. Significant reduction of tumor burden was observed in both cases with one complete response and one mixed response. Conclusion: An increased expression of PD-1, Akt/mTOR and Bcl-2 gene signature was first observed in RT patients after prior ibrutinib therapy. PD-1 overexpression in the tumor B-cells of RT and progressive CLL patients likely regulate AKT/mtOR to upregulate Bcl-2. Targeting both BTK and Bcl-2 pathways in addition to PD-1 blockade appear to be a promising strategy to treat these aggressive diseases. Disclosures Parikh: Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kenderian:Novartis: Patents & Royalties; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Humanigen: Research Funding. Ansell:Takeda: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Kay:Infinity Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Research Funding; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ding:Merck: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Histiocytic neoplasms are rare hematological malignancies that have protean clinical manifestations and can pose significant management challenges. Recently, vemurafenib was approved by the US-FDA for treatment of BRAF-V600-mutant Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD). However, there is a lack of FDA-approved therapies for other histiocytic neoplasms such as Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) and Rosai-Dorfman disease (RDD). Over the last 5 years, immune checkpoint inhibitors such as programmed death-1 (PD-1) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors have shown significant improvement in outcomes among patients with several hematological and solid organ malignancies. In order to identify appropriate treatment candidates for these therapies, predictive biomarkers have been developed in various cancers. Evidence from solid tumors has suggested a favorable response to checkpoint inhibitor therapy with higher tumor mutational burden (TMB), defined as the number of mutations within a tumor genome. Next generation sequencing (NGS) of various tumors has shown an association between TMB of < 5 mutations/megabase (mut/Mb) to be associated with an absence of benefit from checkpoint inhibitors. In addition, high levels of PD-1/PD-L1 expression and microsatellite instability (MSI) are also correlated with response to therapy. The latter may be a result of somatic or germline alterations in DNA mismatch repair genes. In this study, we report the results for these biomarkers using NGS in patients with histiocytic neoplasms. Methods We utilized TempusTM NGS platform to analyze the tissue specimen of patients with histiocytic neoplasm. The Tempus xO Assay (Tempus Labs; Chicago, IL) combines a 1,711 gene targeted somatic and germline DNA sequencing panel with RNA-sequencing to detect both germline and somatic single nucleotide polymorphisms, indels, copy number variants, and gene rearrangements causing chimeric mRNA transcript expression in a wide array of solid tumor types. The assay utilizes formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor samples and matched blood samples. TMB was calculated and reported as somatic mutations in tumor tissue per million base-pairs or mut/Mb. RNA sequencing was utilized to assess for PD-L1 and PD-1 gene expressions as compared to matched tumor and normal reference sets. Both PD-L1 and PD-1 gene expressions were reported as percentiles. DNA mismatch repair status was predicted by analysis of alterations in five common mismatch repair genes in somatic and germline DNA (MSH2, MSH6, MLH1, PMS2, and EPCAM). If there were no alterations identified in these genes, the mismatch repair status was predicted as microsatellite stable (MSS). Results A total of 13 patients with histiocytic neoplasms were included in the study. The distribution of individual histiocytic neoplasms was as follows: RDD (n=9), ECD (n=3), and LCH (n=1). The median TMB for RDD and ECD patients was 0.17 mut/Mb. For the one patient with LCH, the TMB level was 0.51 mut/Mb. Individual TMB levels are shown in figure 1. PD-L1 and PD-1 expression levels are depicted in table 1. Compared to normal reference sets, the PD-L1 expression was elevated in one patient each with RDD and ECD, and PD-1 expression was elevated in two patients each with RDD and ECD. For both ECD patients with higher PD-1 expression, NGS also showed presence of BRAF-V600E in the tumor tissue. The LCH patient had a low level of PD-L1 and PD-1 expression. For patients where evaluation of DNA mismatch repair was feasible on the tissue specimen (n=4), none showed related somatic or germline alterations. Conclusions In our series, the histiocytic neoplasms RDD, ECD, and LCH demonstrated low levels of TMB. None of the RDD and ECD patients were found to have alterations in DNA mismatch repair genes. Other markers of immunotherapy such as PD-L1/PD-1 expression appeared to be higher in ECD patients with BRAF-V600E, but in only a small subset of RDD patients. The low TMB seen in our study suggests that these histiocytic neoplasms may be less likely to respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors such as anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 agents as compared to the tumors with high TMB. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.