Citations

Abstract Background: Outcomes of patients with relapsed/refractory AML (RR-AML) have remained poor. Therapy with venetoclax based combinations in this setting leads to CR/CRi rates of 21-49% (DiNardo CD et al. Am J Hematol 2018, Aldoss I et al. Haematologica 2018, Stahl M et al. Blood Adv 2020). Preclinical studies with BCL-2 inhibitors indicate potential mechanisms of drug resistance including overexpression of the anti-apoptotic protein MCL-1 (Konopleva et al. Cancer Cell. 2006). Pevonedistat is a first in class inhibitor of Nedd8 activating enzyme that induces the pro-apoptotic protein NOXA leading to neutralization of MCL-1 and apoptosis. Preclinical studies evaluating the combination of pevonedistat and venetoclax against AML cell lines have demonstrated a synergistic effect (Knorr KL et al. Cell Death Differ. 2015). Hence, we designed a phase I study to assess the safety and tolerability of adding pevonedistat to the combination of azacitidine and venetoclax in patients with RR-AML. Study design and methods: We conducted a phase I study with the combination of pevonedistat, venetoclax and azacitidine in patients with RR-AML. Patients aged 18 years or above with morphologically documented RR-AML, ECOG performance status 0-2 and adequate organ function were eligible. Major exclusion criteria were isolated extramedullary relapse, hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) within 100 days of enrollment, and active acute GVHD. Previous therapy with hypomethylating agents (HMA) or venetoclax was not an exclusion criterion. The dose escalation phase was conducted using 3+3 design. Treatment included azacitidine (75 mg/m 2 daily x 7 days), venetoclax (400 mg daily x 28 days), and pevonedistat in escalating doses (10-20 mg/m 2 IV days 1,3,5 of each cycle) with a cycle length of 28 days. Pevonedistat was given at 10 mg/m 2 dose in cohort 1, 15 mg/m 2 dose in cohort 2 and 20 mg/m 2 dose in cohort 3. The primary endpoint is to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and toxicity profile of pevonedistat, azacitidine and venetoclax. Other endpoints included determination of response rates, duration of response, survival, pharmacokinetics, correlation of response rates with AML genomic profile, correlation of pretreatment levels of BCL2, BCLXL, MCL1, BAX or BAK with response, determination of changes in NOXA (PMAIP1) mRNA and protein expression pre-and post-pevonedistat treatment, evaluation of BH3 mimetic profiling on bone marrow samples by flow cytometry and assessing the sensitivity of leukemia and leukemic stem/progenitor cells to pevonedistat ex vivo. Results: Thirteen patients participated in the dose escalation phase, 12 of whom were evaluable. Median age was 69 years (61-91), 30.8% had secondary/therapy related AML, 69.2% with adverse risk disease, 53.8% previously received venetoclax/HMA and 23.1% had relapse after prior allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) (Table 1). Seven patients were enrolled into cohort 1 (pevonedistat 10 mg/m 2 dose) of which one was not evaluable, three patients enrolled into cohort 2 (pevonedistat 15 mg/m 2 dose), and three patients enrolled into cohort 3 (pevonedistat 20 mg/m 2 dose). Grade 3 or higher AEs included febrile neutropenia (23%), infection (15%), anemia (38%), neutropenia (54%), thrombocytopenia (38%). There was 1 dose limiting toxicity (DLT) in cohort 1 (atrial fibrillation) that triggered cohort expansion. However, subsequent patients did not experience DLT despite planned dose escalation. Of the 12 evaluable total patients, CR/CRi was observed in 5 (41.6%) patients. Notably, patients with RR-AML who were venetoclax/HMA naïve had a CR/CRi 83.3% (5/6 patients). The response rates for each cohort are summarized in Table 2. Three of the five patients with CR/CRi (60%) achieved MRD negativity by flow cytometry. Four patients who achieved CR/CRi proceeded to allogeneic HCT after therapy. Median OS of the cohort was 5.4 months (1.8-14) and median OS was not reached in patients with CR/CRi. Conclusions: The addition of pevonedistat to venetoclax and azacitidine backbone is safe and well tolerated in patients with RR-AML. Dose escalation yielded encouraging efficacy in venetoclax/HMA naïve RR-AML patients. The study is currently in the dose expansion phase. Details on correlative studies examining mechanisms of therapeutic efficacy and resistance will be reported in the main meeting. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Guru Murthy: Cardinal health: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Other: Advisory board meeting; DAVA Oncology: Honoraria; CancerExpertNow: Honoraria; Qessential: Honoraria; Techspert: Consultancy; Curio Sciences: Honoraria; Guidepoint: Consultancy. Abedin: AltruBio: Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Pfizer: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria; Actinium: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma Inc.: Research Funding. Litzow: Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Pluristem: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Atallah: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Outcomes of adults with relapsed/refractory T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia or lymphoma (T-ALL or T-LBL respectively) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have remained poor despite the availability of newer agents. CD38 is a 45 kDa transmembrane glycoprotein expressed by lymphoid and myeloid cells with several important functions including a role in immune escape from tumor cells [Chillemi A et al. Front Immunol 2017, Furano A et al. J Immunol 1990]. Several studies have demonstrated that CD38 is expressed in tumor cells of patients with T-ALL and AML and potentially targetable using CD38 blocking agents [Naik J et al. Haematologica 2019, Bride KL et al. Blood 2018, Tembhare et al. J Immunother Cancer 2020, Farber M et al. ASH 2018]. XmAb18968 is structurally distinct CD3-CD38 bi-specific T-cell engager with a full fragment crystallizable (Fc) domain modified to minimize Fcγ receptor binding and non-selective activation of T cells and other immune effector cells. XmAb18968 has optimized relative affinities for both CD3 and CD38 which results in reduced cytokine release without compromising target cell killing. We hypothesize targeting CD38 in relapsed/refractory- T-cell ALL/LBL and AML is safe and feasible using XmAb18968, a novel CD3-CD38 bispecific antibody. Study design and methods: This is an investigator-sponsored multi-institutional phase I study evaluating the safety and tolerability of XmAb18968. Patients aged 18 years or above with T-ALL, T-LBL or AML (including undifferentiated leukemia and bi phenotypic leukemia), in relapsed/refractory status (at least one line of prior therapy) including measurable residual disease relapse, CD38 expression ≥ 20%, and adequate organ function will be eligible. Major exclusion criteria are hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) within 6 months of enrollment, active acute GVHD, veno-occlusive disease, and acute promyelocytic leukemia. The study is planned to be conducted at 6 sites in United States. The primary endpoint is to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and toxicity profile of XmAb18968. The secondary endpoints include determination of response rates, duration of response, survival and pharmacokinetics. Exploratory endpoints include correlation of responses with genomic profile, assessment of serum cytokine response, identifying the changes in phenotypic expression of activated T-cells and leukemic cells, correlation of the phenotypic expression with changes in the transcriptome at the single-cell level, proteomics evaluation of cytokine secretion at the single-cell level and correlation of response with N-glycan profiling, quantitative site-occupancy and direct glycopeptide analysis. The study will follow 3+3 design for dose escalation and de-escalation in case of dose limiting toxicity (DLT). Dose escalation will proceed in two separate groups: Group A for subjects with T-ALL and T-LBL and Group B for subjects with AML. Patients will be entered sequentially to each dose level, starting with the first dose level. The DLT observation period for dose-escalation will be 28-days. RP2D will be defined as the highest dose level at which none of the first 3 treated subjects, or no more than 1 of the first 6 treated subjects experience a DLT. A minimum of 24 and a maximum of 60 patients will be needed for the dose escalation phase. Disclosures Guru Murthy: Curio Sciences: Honoraria; Techspert: Consultancy; Qessential: Honoraria; CancerExpertNow: Honoraria; DAVA Oncology: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Other: Advisory board meeting; Cardinal health: Honoraria; Guidepoint: Consultancy. Johnson: Miltenyi Biotec: Research Funding. Abedin: AltruBio: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Helsinn: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma Inc.: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding. Stock: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; amgen: Honoraria; agios: Honoraria; jazz: Honoraria; kura: Honoraria; kite: Honoraria; morphosys: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria; syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pluristeem: Consultancy, Honoraria. Shah: Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Expenses, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Expenses; Acrotech/Spectrum: Honoraria; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Expenses; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Expenses; Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Expenses; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Servier Genetics: Other; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Leonard: Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pratz: Agios: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Cellgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millenium: Research Funding; University of Pennsylvania: Current Employment; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Luger: Syros: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Brystol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Onconova: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Hoffman LaRoche: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding. Badar: Pfizer Hematology-Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Atallah: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) is a potentially curative treatment for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). While many factors influence the outcomes of allo-HCT in these leukemias, the independent impact of ABO mismatching between the patient and donor remains unclear. Methods: Using the CIBMTR database, we identified adults aged ≥18 years with AML or ALL who underwent allo-HCT from HLA-matched sibling donor (MSD) or 8/8 matched unrelated donor (MUD) between 2008-2018. We excluded patients who underwent transplant from a mismatched donor source or who received an ex-vivo T-cell depleted graft. Patients were stratified into cohorts based on ABO status (match, minor mismatch, major mismatch, bidirectional mismatch). Outcomes such as overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS), non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse, incidence of acute graft versus host disease (GVHD), chronic GVHD, neutrophil engraftment, platelet engraftment and graft failure were evaluated. Survival analysis was done using Kaplan-Meier method and significant predictors were evaluated using Cox-proportional hazard regression method. Multivariate regression model included main effect (ABO status) and covariates (patient age, gender match, disease type, disease status, HCT-CI, Karnofsky performance status, donor type, conditioning intensity/use of TBI, stem cell source, GVHD prophylaxis, ATG/alemtuzumab use, transplant year). Results: Of 4946 patients who met the study criteria, 2741 patients (55.4%) were ABO matched, 1030 patients (20.8%) had minor ABO mismatch, 899 patients (18.1%) had major ABO mismatch and 276 patients (5.6%) had bidirectional ABO mismatch. Graft manipulation for ABO incompatibility was performed in 900 patients (minor ABO mismatch=532; major ABO mismatch=226; bidirectional mismatch=142), however, the information on individual graft manipulation techniques was limited. In multivariable analysis (table 1), major ABO mismatch significantly affected the OS, platelet engraftment and primary graft failure. Compared to ABO matched allo-HCT, major ABO mismatched allo-HCT was associated with worse OS (major mismatch - HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.05-1.29; p=0.005), inferior platelet engraftment (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77-0.90; p=<0.001), and higher risk of primary graft failure [4.5% (major mismatch) vs. 3.2% (ABO matched) - HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.12-2.30, p=0.01]. There was a significant interaction between the ABO status and graft type (peripheral blood vs. bone marrow) for the acute GVHD grades 2-4 model, and they are presented separately (table 1). Bidirectional ABO mismatch also significantly impacted the outcomes such as acute GVHD grades 2-4 (in bone marrow stem cell subgroup, HR 0.50, 95%CI 0.27-0.93, p=0.02) in addition to a trend towards inferior survival and NRM (p-value not significant). Other outcomes such as relapse (p=0.41), acute GVHD grades 3-4 (p=0.13), and chronic GVHD (p=0.30) were not significantly influenced by the ABO status. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that pre-transplant ABO status is an independent predictor of survival and other post-transplant outcomes in a large cohort of patients with AML and ALL undergoing allo-HCT in the recent era. This demonstrates the importance of considering ABO status in the donor selection algorithms and potential strategies to mitigate its adverse impact. Due to the limited information available on graft manipulation strategies, the impact of graft manipulation techniques on the outcomes could not be evaluated and needs to be investigated in future studies. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Guru Murthy: Techspert: Consultancy; Guidepoint: Consultancy; Cancerexpertnow: Honoraria; Qessential: Consultancy; TG therapeutics: Other: Advisory board; Cardinal Health Inc.: Honoraria. Devine: Magenta Therapeutics: Current Employment, Research Funding; Tmunity: Current Employment, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnsonand Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Orca Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Be the Match: Current Employment; Vor Bio: Research Funding; Kiadis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Farhadfar: Incyte: Consultancy. Sharma: Vertex Pharmaceuticals/CRISPR Therapeutics: Other: Salary support paid to institution; Novartis: Other: Salary support paid to institution; Spotlight Therapeutics: Consultancy; Medexus Inc: Consultancy; CRISPR Therapeutics: Other, Research Funding; Vindico Medical Education: Honoraria. Stefanski: Novartis: Honoraria. Pulsipher: Equillium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: Research Funding; Jasper Therapeutics: Honoraria. Shaw: mallinkrodt: Other: payments; Orca bio: Consultancy.

Background: Lactic acidosis is the most common cause of anion gap metabolic acidosis in the intensive care unit (ICU), associated with poor outcomes including mortality. We sought to compare machine learning (ML) approaches versus logistic regression analysis for prediction of mortality in lactic acidosis patients admitted to the ICU. Methods: We used the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC-III) database to identify ICU adult patients with lactic acidosis (serum lactate ≥4 mmol/L). The outcome of interest was hospital mortality. We developed prediction models using four ML approaches consisting of random forest (RF), decision tree (DT), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), artificial neural network (ANN), and statistical modeling with forward stepwise logistic regression using the testing dataset. We then assessed model performance using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), accuracy, precision, error rate, Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC), F1 score, and assessed model calibration using the Brier score, in the independent testing dataset. Results: Of 1919 lactic acidosis ICU patients, 1535 and 384 were included in the training and testing dataset, respectively. Hospital mortality was 30%. RF had the highest AUROC at 0.83, followed by logistic regression 0.81, XGBoost 0.81, ANN 0.79, and DT 0.71. In addition, RF also had the highest accuracy (0.79), MCC (0.45), F1 score (0.56), and lowest error rate (21.4%). The RF model was the most well-calibrated. The Brier score for RF, DT, XGBoost, ANN, and multivariable logistic regression was 0.15, 0.19, 0.18, 0.19, and 0.16, respectively. The RF model outperformed multivariable logistic regression model, SOFA score (AUROC 0.74), SAP II score (AUROC 0.77), and Charlson score (AUROC 0.69). Conclusion: The ML prediction model using RF algorithm provided the highest predictive performance for hospital mortality among ICU patient with lactic acidosis.

Introduction In the unprecedented era of COVID-19, ongoing research and evolution of evidence has led to ever-changing guidelines for clinical monitoring and therapeutic options. Formulating treatment protocols requires the understanding and application of the evolving research. Objective The primary objective of this study is to present a systematic evidence-based approach to synthesize the necessary data in order to optimize the management of COVID-19. Methods At Mayo Clinic Florida, we developed a multidisciplinary centralized COVID Treatment Review Panel (TRP) of expert pulmonologists, intensivists, infectious disease specialists, anesthesiologists, hematologists, rheumatologists, and hospitalists that in real-time reviews the latest evidence in peer-reviewed journals, the available clinical trials, and help guide the rapid application of therapeutics or interventions to the patient and the bedside provider. Results/Conclusions The multi-disciplinary team approach of synthesizing clinical data and coordinating care is effective in responding to rapidly evolving and changing evidence. Systematic data collection and evidence-based treatment algorithms enable physicians to rapidly translate the current literature to clinical practice, and improve care and outcomes of patients.

Purpose of review Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is third leading cause of cancer death in the United States, a lethal disease with no screening strategy. Although diagnosis at an early stage is associated with improved survival, clinical detection of PDAC is typically at an advanced symptomatic stage when best in class therapies have limited impact on survival. Recent findings In recent years this status quo has been challenged by the identification of novel risk factors, molecular markers of early-stage disease and innovations in pancreatic imaging. There is now expert consensus that screening may be pursued in a cohort of individuals with increased likelihood of developing PDAC based on genetic and familial risk. Summary The current review summarizes the known risk factors of PDAC, current knowledge and recent observations pertinent to early detection of PDAC in these risk groups and outlines future approaches that will potentially advance the field.

INTRODUCTION: Severe abdominal pain is a cardinal symptom of chronic pancreatitis (CP) associated with a high economic and societal burden. In other chronic pain conditions, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) has demonstrated efficacy in improving patient outcomes (e.g., pain-related disability and depression). However, CBT has not yet been evaluated in adult patients with painful CP. We aimed to (i) evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of an adapted Internet CBT program for CP and (ii) generate pilot data regarding the effects of treatment on patient pain outcomes. METHODS: Thirty adults (mean age = 49.8 years, SD = 12.5; 80% women) with suspected or definite CP were randomized to Internet CBT (Pancreatitis Pain Course) versus control. The Pancreatitis Pain Course has 5 CBT lessons (e.g., thought challenging, relaxation, and activity pacing) delivered over 8 weeks. Pain interference, pain intensity, and quality of life were assessed at pretreatment, posttreatment, and the 3-month follow-up. Qualitative interviews were conducted at posttreatment with a subset of participants. RESULTS: Eighty percent of participants rated the program as highly acceptable; 64.3% completed all 5 lessons. Qualitative data revealed positive perceptions of program features, relevancy, and skills. Patients randomized to Internet CBT demonstrated moderate to large effects in reducing pain intensity and pain interference from baseline to 3 months. The proportion of treatment responders (>30% improvement) was significantly greater in the Internet-CBT group than in the control group (50% vs 13%, Fisher exact t test P = 0.04). DISCUSSION: In this first trial of CBT pain self-management in CP, feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy for reducing pain and disability were demonstrated. Future definitive trials of CBT are needed.