Citations

6549 Background: Representation and outcomes of women, older adults, and racial minorities in ICI trials has not been previously described. Methods: MEDLINE and Embase were searched to identify ICI RCTs. Data for trial characteristics, proportion of trials reporting race, age and sex as well as the proportion of patients by race, age and sex enrolled in ICI trials was collected. Descriptive statistics were reported for trials reporting minority representation and proportion of included patients by race, age and sex. Disparities in representation were calculated using enrollment incidence disparity (EID) and enrollment incidence ratios (EIR) by comparing trial enrollment against U.S. population-based estimates acquired from the SEER 18 incidence database. The relationship of EID to key trial characteristics were compared using standard parametric and non-parametric statistical tests. Trends in EIR were analyzed using the Joinpoint Regression Analysis software. Results: 108 ICI trials from 2009 to 2020 with 48,360 patients were included in this analysis. All RCTs reported sex (101/101). 78 trials reported race (72%), of which only 41 trials (38%) reported data on all 5 U.S. racial categories (Black, White, Asian, Pacific Islander and Native American). Participation of Black patients was reported in 66 trials (61%), White participants in 78 trials (72%), Asians in 69 trials (64%), Native Americans and Pacific Islanders in 41 trials (38%), and Hispanics in 24 trials (22%). Age categories were inconsistently defined, and 80 trials (74%) reported the proportion of patient by age categories. Subgroup analyses of clinical outcomes by race, age and sex were reported in 17 (22%), 62 (79%) and 57 (73%) trials respectively. Women (trial proportion [TP]: 32%; EIR: 0.77), patients aged ≥ 65 years (TP: 42%; EIR: 0.74), Black participants (TP: 1.8%; EIR: 0.17) and Hispanic participants (TP: 5.9%; EIR: 0.67) were largely underrepresented, and Asians were overrepresented (TP: 15.9%; EIR: 2.64). Black patients were underrepresented across all cancer types. Similarly, women, older adults ( > 65 years of age) and Hispanic patients were consistently underrepresented across cancer types with few exceptions. Representation of older adults increased significantly from 2010-2020 (APC: 2.72), while representation of Black patients decreased significantly from 2009-2020 (APC: -23.37). Black patients were found to be significantly underrepresented in phase III trials (p = 0.0005), trials with OS as the primary endpoint (p = 0.004), and PD1 inhibitor trials (p = 0.002). Hispanics were significantly underrepresented in PD1 inhibitor trials (p = 0.003). Conclusions: There is both suboptimal reporting about participation and underrepresentation of women, racial minorities (particularly Black patients) and older adults in ICI trials as compared to their cancer incidence.

Objectives To evaluate outcomes of patients achieving a post‐treatment pathological stage of <ypT2N0 at radical cystectomy (RC) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for muscle‐invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) to identify an optimal definition of pathological response. Patients and Methods Patients from 10 international centres who underwent NAC for cT2–4aN0–1 MIBC and achieved <ypT2N0 disease at RC were included. The primary outcome was time to recurrence, either local or distant. Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to evaluate associations between clinicopathological variables and outcomes. Results A total of 625 patients were included. The median age was 66 years and 80% were male. Gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC, 56%) and methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin (MVAC)/dose‐dense (dd)MVAC (32%) were the most common NAC regimens. ypT0, pure ypTis, ypTa ±ypTis and ypT1 ± ypTis were attained in 58.1%, 20.0%, 7.6% and 14.2% of patients, respectively. The cumulative incidence of recurrence at 5 years was 9%, 16%, 29% and 30%, respectively. Pathological stage was prognostic for recurrence, with ypTa ± Tis (hazard ratio [HR] 3.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.40–7.30) and ypT1 ± Tis disease (HR 4.03, 95% CI 2.13–7.63) associated with a significantly higher recurrence risk. Pure ypTis (HR 1.66, 95% CI 0.82–3.38) and the type of NAC regimen (ddMVAC: HR 1.59, 95% CI 0.55–4.56; MVAC: HR 1.18, 9%% CI 0.25–5.54; reference: GC) were not associated with recurrence. Conclusion We propose that optimal pathological response after NAC be defined as attainment of ypT0N0/ypTisN0 at RC. Patients with ypTaN0 or ypT1N0 disease (with or without Tis) at RC displayed a significantly higher risk of recurrence and may be candidates for trials investigating adjuvant therapy.

Abstract Background: The prognosis of patients with PTCL remains poor after standard CHOP therapy - the most commonly used combination regimen. Relapses occur in the majority of patients, and curability rates of the relapsed disease are very low. Hence, advances in front-line therapy of PTCL are long overdue. Pralatrexate, a second-generation antifolate, demonstrated a single agent activity in patients with relapsed and refractory PTCL with a response rate of 27%, including complete remissions in 11% of patients (O'Connor et al. J Clin Onc 2011). We conducted a Phase 1 multi-center dose-escalation study of pralatrexate in combination with standard CHOP (Fol-CHOP) in treatment-naïve PTCL patients. Objectives: The primary objective of the study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of pralatrexate when administered with a standard CHOP regimen to patients with newly diagnosed PTCL. The secondary objectives included safety, tolerability, efficacy and pharmacokinetics of pralatrexate in combination with CHOP (Fol-CHOP). Methods: In Part 1 of this 3+3 dose-escalation study, pralatrexate was administered at 10, 15, 20, 25, or 30 mg/m2 as an IV push on days 1 and 8 of a standard 21-day CHOP regimen (cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2, doxorubicin 50 mg/m2, vincristine 1.4 mg/m2 [maximum 2 mg] on day 1 and oral prednisone 100 mg on days 1-5). In Part 2 of the study patients were treated at the MTD of pralatrexate established in Part 1, with standard CHOP. In both parts of the study patients were treated with up to 6 cycles of therapy, or until toxicity or disease progression. Patients received antimicrobial prophylaxis, myeloid growth factor support, and "leucovorin rescue" throughout 6 cycles of therapy. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were considered during the 1st cycle of Fol-CHOP and included: Grade 4 infections, treatment-related non-hematological toxicity ≥Grade 3, platelet count &lt; 25 X 109/L at any time, or ANC &lt; 0.5 X 109/L for &gt;7 days despite G-CSF administration. Responses were assessed by the investigator per the Revised Response Criteria for Malignant Lymphoma (Cheson 2007). Results: A total of 31 patients have been enrolled (19 in Part 1; 12 in Part 2). MTD was not reached and pralatrexate dose of 30 mg/m2 in combination with CHOP was selected for Part 2 of the study as predefined by the protocol. The majority of patients were male, White, with the median age of 66 yrs (range, 18-78) at the time of enrolment. PTCL diagnoses included: anaplastic large cell lymphoma, anaplastic lymphomakinase-negative (ALCL, ALK-, n=5), peripheral T-cell lymphoma, not-otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS, n=18), and angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL, n=5). Fol-CHOP was generally well tolerated with median RDI of 98%. Common (≥ 30%) adverse events (AEs) of any grade were fatigue (n=23), constipation (n=20), nausea (n=16), mucositis (n=14), diarrhea (n=12), anemia (n=9), vomiting (n=10) and oral pain (n=10). Most common (≥ 10%) AEs ≥ grade 3 were anemia (n=6), fatigue (n=4) and neutrophil count decreas (n=5). The only Grade &gt;3 treatment-related AEs (≥10%) was neutrophil count decrease (n=4). SAEs were observed in 13 patients, treatment related SAEs were anemia, febrile neutropenia, dehydration, mucositis and nausea. Five patients withdrew from study: 2 due to disease progression, 1 due to AE and 2 due lapse &gt;28 days between doses. In the 27 patients avaluable for response, the investigator assessed objective response (OR) and complete response (CR) rates were 89% wand 67%, respectively. Conclusions: The combination of pralatrexate and CHOP was well tolerated in treatment-naive PTCL patients. MTD of pralatrexate was not reached, and the protocol-defined maximum dose of 30 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day CHOP cycle was recomended for future studies. The observed OR and CR rates warrant further evaluation of this regimen in newly diagnosed PTCL patients. Disclosures Shustov: Celgene: Other: Publication assistance; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Bhat: Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Reddy: Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Employment.

Renal vein thrombosis is a rare, but potentially serious complication in patients with renal transplantation as it can lead to non-reversible graft injury and failure. Often this clinical entity is found in the early transplantation period, and the available management strategies are associated with favourable patient outcomes. The incidence, pathophysiology and outcomes for the delayed occurrence of renal vein thrombosis are unknown. The case here describes a unique situation with an excellent clinical outcome related to early diagnosis and appropriate care.

472 Background: Enfortumab Vedotin (EV), an antibody-drug conjugate that targets nectin-4, is approved for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) progressing post-platinum and PD1/L1 inhibitor therapy. Erdafitinib is approved in patients for post-platinum mUC with activating genomic alterations in FGFR2/3, but the activity of EV in this subset is unclear. We investigated the activity of EV in patients (pts) with mUC based on FGFR2/3 genotype to inform management. Methods: In this multi-center, retrospective analysis, we assessed the objective response rate (ORR) to EV in mUC pts with and without FGFR2/3 genomic alterations detected by targeted panel next-generation sequencing. Activating gene fusions and known hotspots mutations in the two genes were considered. Descriptive analysis of ORR and patient characteristics was performed. Fisher’s exact test and binomial test with two-tailed p-value were used. Results: 40 pts were available from 4 institutions. Most pts were male (31/40, 78%) and the median age at start of EV was 74.1 (range 49 – 90) years. Ten patients (25%) had upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), and 33 (82%) had baseline ECOG performance status of 0-1. 31 of 39 patients had received both platinum-based chemotherapy and PD1/L1 inhibitors. Seven patients had confirmed activating hotspot FGFR3 mutations (p.S249C or p.Y373C). One pt had FGFR2 high-level amplification (HA), and one had FGFR3 HA. Of 36 patients evaluable for ORR, 18 had partial response (PR), 12 had stable disease (SD) and 6 had progressive disease (PD). Patients with FGFR2/3 activating mutations exhibited an ORR that was not statistically different compared to patients without no mutations: 2/7 (29%; 90% CI: 5 – 66%) vs. 16/29 (55%; 90% CI: 38 – 71%) respectively ( p-value = 0.4). 3/7 patients with FGFR3 hotspot mutations received an FGFR2/3 inhibitor and none responded; one of them had a sequential response to EV. Conclusions: In this multi-center retrospective cohort, FGFR2/3 activating genomic alterations did not appear to compromise response to EV in mUC. Larger studies are required to confirm our findings and optimal sequencing of EV and erdafitinib in mUC pts with FGFR2/3 genomic alterations requires further assessment.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionised cancer therapy in the past decade. Although they have been indicated to treat a diverse range of malignant neoplasms, they are also associated with various immune-related adverse effects. We report the case of a 74-year-old man with a history of urothelial carcinoma who had atezolizumab-induced myocarditis and myositis resulting in acute hypercapnic respiratory failure, despite the discontinuation of atezolizumab and aggressive treatment with corticosteroids. This case highlights the importance of a multidisciplinary approach for early diagnosis and treatment of immune-related adverse events. Physicians must be aware of the risks associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors and have a basic knowledge regarding their management.