Citations

AbstractCerebrovascular endothelial cells (CECs) are integral components of both the blood‐brain barrier (BBB) and the neurovascular unit (NVU). As the primary cell type of the BBB, CECs are responsible for the tight regulation of molecular transport between the brain parenchyma and the periphery. Additionally, CECs are essential in neurovascular coupling where they help regulate cerebral blood flow in response to regional increases in cellular demand in the NVU. CEC dysfunction occurs during both normative ageing and in cerebrovascular disease, which leads to increased BBB permeability and neurovascular uncoupling. This MiniReview compiles what is known about the molecular changes underlying CEC dysfunction, many of which are reminiscent of cells that have become senescent. In general, cellular senescence is defined as an irreversible growth arrest characterized by the acquisition of a pro‐inflammatory secretory phenotype in response to DNA damage or other cellular stresses. We discuss evidence for endothelial cell senescence in ageing and cardiovascular disease, and how CEC senescence may contribute to age‐related cerebrovascular dysfunction.

1006 Background: Patients (pts) with ER-/PR- MBC do not benefit from endocrine treatment (tx). Doane et al (Oncogene 2006;25:3994) described a subset of ER-/PR- BC with a gene expression profile similar to ER+ BC but characterized by AR expression and AR-dependent growth in vitro. Hence, we conducted a multicenter phase II trial (NCT00468715) of the AR antagonist, bicalutamide (B) for pts with AR+ ER-/PR- MBC. Methods: Pts with ER-/PR- (IHC <10%) MBC were consented to AR testing, confirmed centrally at MSKCC. If AR+ (DAKO IHC ≥10%), pts were eligible for tx if ECOG performance status (PS) <2 and normal organ function. No limit on prior tx except prior trastuzumab required if HER2+. Eligible AR+ pts who consented to tx received B 150mg orally daily in 28-day cycles (C). Toxicity assessed q4wks, response q12wks. Primary endpoint = clinical benefit rate (CBR): CR + PR + stable disease (ds) >6mo (SD). B would be considered worthy of further study if ≥4/28 pts have clinical benefit. Results: As of 12/21/11,436 pts consented for AR testing. 24 were ineligible, 12 await testing. 47/400 tested were AR+ (12%). 26 received tx with B (6 ineligible for tx, 15 are eligible for tx with B at progression (POD) if clinically appropriate and study slots remains). Two AR+ pts treated with B were ER+ and removed from study. Three have received tx <12wks. Treated pt characteristics (n=24): median(med)age 64 (41-83), PS 0 (0-1), HER2+ 1, visceral metastases 17. Prior chemotherapy: neo/adjuvant 16; med # regimens for MBC 1 (0-8). Med C# 3 (2-49+). Best response: (21 evaluable pts): CBR 19% (95% CI 5-42%), SD>6mo 4, CR/PR 0, SD<6mo 3, POD 14. Conclusions: ~12% of ER-/PR- MBC pts are AR+. For these pts, AR-inhibition with B is feasible, well tolerated, and has activity based on pre-specified criteria. This study has closed to accrual for AR testing as of 1/2012. These results of the primary endpoint are not expected to change by accrual of the 2 remaining pts. Supported by TBCRC/Breast Cancer Alliance/AstraZeneca. [Table: see text]

3598 Background: Drug resistance to topotecan can be the result of BCRP/ABCG2 expression. BCRP is a member of the ABC transporter family that pumps anticancer drugs out of the cell. Lapatinib is a potent and selective dual inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR or ErbB1) and ErbB2 (Her2/Neu). 4-aminoquinazoline tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been shown to enhance the cytotoxicity of topotecan through inhibition of BCRP-mediated drug efflux in cancer cells. Methods: Thirty-seven patients with advanced stage cancers were enrolled at escalating dose levels of lapatinib and topotecan in cohorts IA, IB and IIB (MTD). Treatment schedule included lapatinib (750 - 1500 mg/d) daily for 21 (cohort IA) or 28 days (cohort IB) and topotecan (2.4 - 4.0 mg/ m2), days 1, 8 and 15; cycles were repeated every 28 days. Three patients were treated at each dose level, 18 on cohort IA, 9 on cohort IB and 10 at MTD (cohort IIB). Assessments of toxicity were performed with each cycle and clinical response was determined per RECIST criteria every other cycle. Results: The MTD for cohorts IA and IB was reached at a dose of 1250 mg of lapatinib and 3.2 mg/m2 of IV topotecan on days 1, 8 and 15. No DLT were seen during the dose escalation stage of cohorts IA and IB. Ten patients were enrolled at the MTD. There were no grade 4+ events. Thirteen grade 3+ events, considered to be related to treatment, were seen in 6 patients. The most common grade 3+ toxicities included dehydration (2) diarrhea (2), nausea (3), vomiting (2), neutropenia (1), thrombocytopenia (1), and fatigue (1). No abnormalities in left ventricular ejection fraction were noted. Stable disease was seen in 46% of the 37 patients. Conclusions: The combination of lapatinib and topotecan is a well-tolerated regimen. The MTD for the combination is lapatinib 1,250 mg orally once daily for 21 or 28 days and topotecan 3.2 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15. Pharmacokinetic analysis for drug interaction will be available for presentation at the meeting. Supported in part by GSK and Mayo Clinic No significant financial relationships to disclose.

AbstractPrevious transcriptome‐wide association studies (TWAS) have identified breast cancer risk genes by integrating data from expression quantitative loci and genome‐wide association studies (GWAS), but analyses of breast cancer subtype‐specific associations have been limited. In this study, we conducted a TWAS using gene expression data from GTEx and summary statistics from the hitherto largest GWAS meta‐analysis conducted for breast cancer overall, and by estrogen receptor subtypes (ER+ and ER−). We further compared associations with ER+ and ER− subtypes, using a case‐only TWAS approach. We also conducted multigene conditional analyses in regions with multiple TWAS associations. Two genes, STXBP4 and HIST2H2BA, were specifically associated with ER+ but not with ER– breast cancer. We further identified 30 TWAS‐significant genes associated with overall breast cancer risk, including four that were not identified in previous studies. Conditional analyses identified single independent breast‐cancer gene in three of six regions harboring multiple TWAS‐significant genes. Our study provides new information on breast cancer genetics and biology, particularly about genomic differences between ER+ and ER− breast cancer.

Abstract Extracellular vesicles secreted from adipose‐derived mesenchymal stem cells (ADSCs) have therapeutic effects in inflammatory diseases. However, production of extracellular vesicles (EVs) from ADSCs is costly, inefficient, and time consuming. The anti‐inflammatory properties of adipose tissue‐derived EVs and other biogenic nanoparticles have not been explored. In this study, biogenic nanoparticles are obtained directly from lipoaspirate, an easily accessible and abundant source of biological material. Compared to ADSC‐EVs, lipoaspirate nanoparticles (Lipo‐NPs) take less time to process (hours compared to months) and cost less to produce (clinical‐grade cell culture facilities are not required). The physicochemical characteristics and anti‐inflammatory properties of Lipo‐NPs are evaluated and compared to those of patient‐matched ADSC‐EVs. Moreover, guanabenz loading in Lipo‐NPs is evaluated for enhanced anti‐inflammatory effects. Apolipoprotein E and glycerolipids are enriched in Lipo‐NPs compared to ADSC‐EVs. Additionally, the uptake of Lipo‐NPs in hepatocytes and macrophages is higher. Lipo‐NPs and ADSC‐EVs have comparable protective and anti‐inflammatory effects. Specifically, Lipo‐NPs reduce toll‐like receptor 4‐induced secretion of inflammatory cytokines in macrophages. Guanabenz‐loaded Lipo‐NPs further suppress inflammatory pathways, suggesting that this combination therapy can have promising applications for inflammatory diseases.

OBJECTIVES: Multitarget stool DNA (MT-sDNA) testing has grown as a noninvasive screening modality for colorectal cancer (CRC), but real-world clinical data are limited in the post-FDA approval setting. The effect of previous colonoscopy on MT-sDNA performance is not known. We aimed to evaluate findings of colorectal neoplasia (CRN) at diagnostic colonoscopy in patients with positive MT-sDNA testing, stratified by patient exposure to previous colonoscopy. METHODS: We identified consecutive patients completing MT-sDNA testing over a 39-month period and reviewed the records of those with positive tests for neoplastic findings at diagnostic colonoscopy. MT-sDNA test positivity rate, adherence to diagnostic colonoscopy, and the positive predictive value (PPV) of MT-sDNA for any CRN and neoplastic subtypes were calculated. RESULTS: Of 16,469 MT-sDNA tests completed, testing returned positive in 2,326 (14.1%) patients. After exclusion of patients at increased risk for CRC, 1,801 patients remained, 1,558 (87%) of whom underwent diagnostic colonoscopy; 918 of 1,558 (59%) of these patients had undergone previous colonoscopy, whereas 640 (41%) had not. Any CRN was found in 1,046 of 1,558 patients (PPV = 67%). More neoplastic lesions were found in patients without previous colonoscopy (73%); however, the rates remained high among those who had undergone previous colonoscopy (63%, P < 0.0001). The large majority (79%) of patients had right-sided neoplasia. DISCUSSION: MT-sDNA has a high PPV for any CRN regardless of exposure to previous colonoscopy. Right-sided CRN was found at colonoscopy in most patients with positive MT-sDNA testing, representing a potential advantage over other currently available screening modalities for CRC.

Abstract Eating disorders and substance use disorders frequently co‐occur. Twin studies reveal shared genetic variance between liabilities to eating disorders and substance use, with the strongest associations between symptoms of bulimia nervosa and problem alcohol use (genetic correlation [ r g ], twin‐based = 0.23‐0.53). We estimated the genetic correlation between eating disorder and substance use and disorder phenotypes using data from genome‐wide association studies (GWAS). Four eating disorder phenotypes (anorexia nervosa [AN], AN with binge eating, AN without binge eating, and a bulimia nervosa factor score), and eight substance‐use‐related phenotypes (drinks per week, alcohol use disorder [AUD], smoking initiation, current smoking, cigarettes per day, nicotine dependence, cannabis initiation, and cannabis use disorder) from eight studies were included. Significant genetic correlations were adjusted for variants associated with major depressive disorder and schizophrenia. Total study sample sizes per phenotype ranged from ~2400 to ~537 000 individuals. We used linkage disequilibrium score regression to calculate single nucleotide polymorphism‐based genetic correlations between eating disorder‐ and substance‐use‐related phenotypes. Significant positive genetic associations emerged between AUD and AN ( r g = 0.18; false discovery rate q = 0.0006), cannabis initiation and AN ( r g = 0.23; q < 0.0001), and cannabis initiation and AN with binge eating ( r g = 0.27; q = 0.0016). Conversely, significant negative genetic correlations were observed between three nondiagnostic smoking phenotypes (smoking initiation, current smoking, and cigarettes per day) and AN without binge eating ( r gs = −0.19 to −0.23; qs < 0.04). The genetic correlation between AUD and AN was no longer significant after co‐varying for major depressive disorder loci. The patterns of association between eating disorder‐ and substance‐use‐related phenotypes highlights the potentially complex and substance‐specific relationships among these behaviors.

Background REGN1979 is an anti-CD20 x anti-CD3 bispecific IgG4 antibody (Ab) modified to reduce Fc binding. Engaging both targets results in CD20-specific, local T-cell activation and cytotoxicity, a mechanism of action distinct from standard anti-CD20 Abs. Dose escalation is complete and a recommended Ph 2 dose has been determined. We report Ph 1 safety and efficacy results of REGN1979 in patients (pts) with R/R B-NHL previously treated with anti-CD20 Abs, including pts with progressive disease after anti-CD19 CAR T-cell (CAR T) therapy. Methods Primary objectives are to determine safety, tolerability, and occurrence of dose limiting toxicities (DLTs). Other objectives are to assess antitumor activity, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics. Eligible pts with R/R B-NHL must have received prior CD20-directed therapy. Treatment consists of 12 weekly intravenous doses of REGN1979 followed by every 2-week dosing for 12 doses (36 weeks total). Results As of June 3, 2019, 96 pts (diffuse large cell B-cell lymphoma [DLBCL] [n=53], follicular lymphoma [FL] grade [Gr] 1-3a [n=25], mantle cell lymphoma [n=6], marginal zone lymphoma [n=6], or other [FL Gr 3b, FL unknown, FL ungraded, or Waldenström macroglobulinemia ] [n=6]) were treated with REGN1979 0.03-320 mg and received a median of 9 doses (range 1-24). Pts had a median of 3 prior lines of therapy (range 1-11); 12 pts with prior CAR T therapy were included in the safety analysis of which 6 were included in the efficacy analysis. Twenty-four pts remain on treatment; 18 completed treatment; 54 discontinued early (35 due to progressive disease [PD]). No pts with B-NHL experienced a DLT. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were pyrexia (n=74), CRS (n=55), chills (n=49), infections and infestations (n=47), fatigue (n=36), increased C-reactive protein (n=32), and anemia (n=32). Seven pts experienced Gr 3 CRS. The severity of CRS symptoms declined through optimized pre-medication even with REGN1979 dose escalation. Most common Gr 3 or 4 AEs were anemia (n=19), decreased lymphocytes/lymphopenia (n=19), infections and infestations (n=18), decreased neutrophils/neutropenia (n=17), and hypophosphatemia/decreased blood phosphorus (n=16). No pts had seizures or grade 4/5 neurologic AEs. Gr 3 neurologic AEs included depressed level of consciousness (unrelated), somnolence, and syncope (n=1 each). Neurological events were transient and none required permanent treatment termination. Five pts discontinued due to AEs: Gr 3 hemolysis; Gr 3 fatigue; Gr 2 and Gr 3 pneumonia; and Gr 3 neck abscess (1 each). Eleven pts died on study: PD (n=6), gastric perforation (n=1), cardiac arrest (n=1), lung infection (n=1), multi-organ failure (n=1), pneumonia (n=1). The Table and Figure show efficacy and duration of response for R/R DLBCL by dose level. Pts who had opportunity for response assessment at Week 12 were included in the analysis of response. Emerging data suggest increasing efficacy with higher doses in R/R DLBCL, with 5 of 8 pts treated at 80/160/320 mg achieving CR; at these doses 2 of 3 pts achieved CR after failure of CAR T therapy. Data also suggest increasing efficacy with increasing doses in R/R FL, but maximum efficacy appears to be achieved at lower doses than in DLBCL; in pts with FL Gr 1-3a treated at ≥5 mg, the ORR was 93% (13/14), and the CR rate was 71.4% (10/14). REGN1979 concentrations in serum increased linearly with dose during the first five weeks. Elevated levels of serum cytokines were observed, mostly in week 1, and no correlation was observed with clinical efficacy. Immunohistological analysis of malignant lymph node tissue demonstrated that pts with high and low CD20 expression achieved clinical response. Relapse among responders was seen with either maintenance or loss of CD20 expression, suggesting antigen-dependent and independent disease escape mechanisms. Conclusions/Summary Tolerability of REGN1979 has been demonstrated at doses up to the final dose level of 320 mg weekly, with no observed DLTs in pts with B-NHL. No pts discontinued due to neurologic AE. Activity was observed broadly in heavily pretreated R/R B-NHL pts treated with REGN1979. With increasing dose, more resistant tumors such as R/R DLBCL are showing benefit, even in pts with prior CAR T therapy failure. Based on these efficacy findings, a global Ph 2 study is underway to evaluate REGN1979 monotherapy in R/R FL Gr 1-3a, R/R DLBCL, and other R/R B-NHL subtypes. Disclosures Bannerji: AbbVie, Inc: Consultancy, travel support; Gilead: Other: travel support; Gilead: Other: travel support; Pharmacyclics: Other: travel support; Merck: Other: travel support, Patents & Royalties: IP rights; AbbVie, Inc: Consultancy; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Other: travel support, Patents & Royalties: IP rights; Pharmacyclics: Other: travel support. Allan:Acerta Pharma: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie, Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie company: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Verastem Oncology, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Arnason:Celgene/Juno: Consultancy; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy. Brown:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy; Morphosys: Other: Data safety monitoring boards ; Sun Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Research Funding; Sun: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Teva: Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; Invectys: Other: other; Loxo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Octapharma: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Dynamo Therapeutics: Consultancy; Catapult Therapeutics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy. Advani:Kyowa Kirin Pharmaceutical Developments, Inc.: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celmed: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences, Inc./Kite Pharma, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Infinity Pharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cell Medica, Ltd: Consultancy; Autolus: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agensys: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Stanford University: Employment, Equity Ownership; Regeneron: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ansell:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment. O'Brien:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Aptose Biosciences, Inc: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Kite: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vaniam Group LLC: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Chavez:Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Duell:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Martin:I-MAB: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy. Charnas:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ambati:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Adriaens:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ufkin:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhu:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Li:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gasparini:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ibrahim:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jankovic:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fiaschi:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Aina:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhang:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Deering:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hamon:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Thurston:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Murphy:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Weinreich:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Yancopoulos:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lowy:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sternberg:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Topp:Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: The data described in the abstract will report on use REGN1979 in a Phase 1 clinical trial of patients with B-NHL.

167 Background: Previous studies have reported high TILs are a favorable prognostic factor in stage II CC. However, whether the impact of TILs on overall survival (OS) differs among pts who did or did not receive ADJ is still to be determined. We assessed the prognostic value of CD3+ TILs in pts with stage II CC according to whether they received ADJ or not (no-ADJ). Methods: Pts treated with curative surgery for stage II CC (2002-2013) were identified through the Santa Maria alle Scotte Hospital database. CD3+ TILs at the invasive front, center of tumor, and stroma, were determined by immunohistochemistry and manually quantified as the rate of TILs/total tissue areas. High TILs (H-TILs) was defined as > 20%. Pts were classified as high or low TILs (L-TILs) and ADJ or no-ADJ. Cox models were used to assess OS with hazard ratio estimates (95% CI). Results: Of the 678 pts included (356 deaths), 137 (20%) received ADJ while 541 (80%) did not. ADJ comprised fluoropyrimidine +/- oxaliplatin. Median follow-up was 8.5 years. The distributions of the 4 groups were: 16% (L-TIL/ADJ), 64% (L-TIL/no-ADJ), 5% (H-TIL/ADJ), 15% (H-TIL/no-ADJ). Compared to H-TILs/no-ADJ, ADJ pts had a significantly longer OS (P < .0001) regardless of the TILS rate while L-TILs/no ADJ had significantly shorter OS and higher risk of death (HR = 1.41; 95% CI, 1.06-1.88; P < .0001) [See table]. On multivariable analysis, adjusting for perforation, obstruction, T-stage, grade, < 12 lymph nodes resected, lymphovascular and perineural invasion, the adverse prognostic impact of L-TILs (vs H-TILs) in no-ADJ pts was confirmed (HR = 1.36; 95% CI 1.02, 1.82; P = .0373). Conclusions: Low CD3+ TILs rate was independently associated with shorter OS in stage II CC pts who did not receive ADJ, but was not prognostic among pts who had ADJ. These data suggest a potentially different impact of TILs in chemo-treated vs -untreated stage II CC which could affect clinical decision making. [Table: see text]