Citations

Background: B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) is widely expressed on normal plasma cells and malignant plasma cells in multiple myeloma (MM). MEDI2228 is an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) that targets the extracellular domain of human BCMA with preferential binding to membrane-bound versus circulating soluble BCMA. The ADC is comprised of a fully human antibody to BCMA, site- specifically conjugated to a DNA cross-linking pyrrolobenzodiazepine (PBD) dimer via a protease-cleavable linker. After cell surface binding to BCMA, MEDI2228 is internalized and cleaved in the lysosomal compartment, releasing the active PBD, which cross-links DNA and leads to apoptotic cell death. We report the results from a phase 1, first-in-human, open-label, dose-escalation and expansion trial (NCT03489525) that evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and clinical activity of MEDI2228 in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory MM (R/R MM). Methods: Eligible pts were ≥18 years old with confirmed R/R MM as defined by International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria, had measurable disease, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1. Pts had to have progressed after treatment with three classes of standard-of-care anti-myeloma drugs, including proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Dose escalation was based on an accelerated titration design, with an mTPI-2 algorithm. During dose escalation, MEDI2228 was administered in sequentially ascending dose levels (0.0125, 0.025, 0.05, 0.1, and 0.2 mg/kg) intravenously every 3 weeks (Q3W). Due to dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), the dose was de-escalated from 0.2 mg/kg to an intermediate dose level of 0.14 mg/kg. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints included assessment of preliminary efficacy, PK, and immunogenicity. Results: As of May 15, 2020, 82 pts received MEDI2228 during dose escalation and expansion. All pts had received prior therapy with an IMiD, PI, and mAb: lenalidomide, 76 (94%); pomalidomide, 68 (84%); bortezomib, 77 (95%); carfilzomib, 64 (79%); and daratumumab, 71 (87%). Pts received between 2-11 lines of prior regimens. At 0.2 mg/kg, 2 pts experienced DLTs (grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia) without bleeding; no DLTs were reported for other dose levels. The maximum tolerated dose was 0.14 mg/kg Q3W. Treatment-related adverse events (TEAEs) occurring in ≥20% of pts in the 0.14 mg/kg cohort were photophobia (53.7%), thrombocytopenia (31.7%), rash (29.3%), increased gamma-glutamyltransferase (24.4%), dry eye (19.5%), and pleural effusion (19.5%). No reports of keratopathy or visual acuity loss were observed in the 0.14 mg/kg cohort. The TEAE profiles at lower-dose levels were similar but with lower incidences compared with the 0.14 mg/kg level. Efficacy was demonstrated at all dose levels (dose, objective response rate [ORR], [n]): 0.0125 mg/kg, 33.3% [1/3]; 0.025 mg/kg, 16.7% [1/6]; 0.05 mg/kg, 33.3% [3/9]; 0.10 mg/kg, 27.8% [5/18]; 0.14 mg/kg, 61.0% [25/41]; 0.2 mg/kg, 40.0%, [2/5]. In the 0.14 mg/kg cohort, ORR was 61.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 44.5%, 75.8%); there were 10 (24.4%) very good partial responses (VGPRs), 15 (36.6%) partial responses, and 3 (7.3%) minimal responses. Four of the VGPR pts were immunofixation negative. Most (90.2%) pts in the 0.14 mg/kg cohort had received prior daratumumab. Median duration of response (DOR) in the 0.14 mg/kg cohort was not reached. MEDI2228 exhibited linear PK at doses of ≥0.05 mg/kg Q3W that was minimally impacted by circulating levels of soluble BCMA at baseline. There was no difference in BCMA expression by IHC in the bone marrow of responders compared with nonresponders. Thirty-six pts in the 0.14 mg/kg cohort discontinued treatment due to adverse events (n=24), progressive disease (n=8), patient decision (n=2), investigator decision (n=1), or death (n=1). Conclusion: MEDI2228 is a BCMA-targeted ADC that demonstrated clinical efficacy at all dose levels explored. MEDI2228 0.14 mg/kg Q3W had a manageable safety profile and an ORR of 61% in a heavily pretreated population with myeloma that is R/R post PI, IMiD, and mAb therapies. Disclosures Kumar: Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; MedImmune: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Sanofi: Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy. Bhutani:Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy; Takeda: Other: Clinical trial funding to institute, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Other: Clinical trial funding to institute, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; MedImmune: Other: Clinical Trial Funding to Institute; Prothena: Other: Clinical Trial Funding to Institute; Janssen: Other: Clinical Trial Funding to Institute. Spencer:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; Servier: Consultancy, Other: Grant/Research Support; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support, Speakers Bureau; Haemalogix: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other, Speakers Bureau; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; TheraMyc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Antegene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmamar: Other. Ailawadhi:Cellectar: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Phosplatin: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Kalff:Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; CSL: Honoraria. Pore:AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Gibson:AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Other: Paid as a clinical scientist contractor. Wang:AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Cheng:Astrazeneca: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company. Williams:AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kinneer:AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Personal fees; BCMA Monoclonal Antibody-Drug Conjugate: Patents & Royalties: Pending. Zonder:Intellia: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Alnylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Oncopeptide: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees; Prothena: Consultancy; Caelum: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding. Larsen:Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Oncology: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yee:Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Oncopeptide: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding. Dimopoulos:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Speakers Bureau.

Introduction: Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) is an expected and potentially life-threatening toxicity associated with CAR T cell therapy. Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, bb2121), a BCMA-directed CAR T cell therapy, demonstrated promising efficacy in triple-class exposed and highly refractory patients with multiple myeloma in the pivotal phase 2 KarMMa study, with an overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, median duration of response, and median progression-free survival of 73%, 33%, 10.7 months, and 8.8 months, respectively, across the target dose levels of 150−450 × 106 CAR+ T cells, and 82%, 39%, 11.3 months, and 12.1 months at the highest target dose of 450 × 106 CAR+ T cells (Munshi et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38[suppl, abstr]:8503). Identifying the patterns of CRS evolution, associations with baseline patient and disease characteristics, and the impact of interventions are key to understanding this adverse event in the context of ide-cel. In addition, a better understanding of lower-grade CRS, including maximum grade 1 events, is important as these are easier to manage and represent a lower burden on the healthcare system. We report results of an examination of CRS events in the KarMMa study. Methods: Patients in the KarMMa trial (NCT03361748) were required to have ≥3 prior regimens (including an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody) and were refractory to their last regimen per International Myeloma Working Group criteria. Patients received ide-cel target doses of 150, 300, or 450 × 106 CAR+ T cells 2 days after lymphodepletion with cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 plus fludarabine 30 mg/m2 daily for 3 days. The primary endpoint was ORR. The key secondary endpoint was CR rate; other secondary endpoints included safety. CRS was graded according to criteria in Lee et al. (Blood. 2014;124:188). Patient characteristics and CRS management were examined by CRS grade to identify variables associated with higher-grade CRS. Management of CRS included tocilizumab 8 mg/kg with the addition of corticosteroids and other agents as needed. Results: Of 128 patients treated with ide-cel, 107 (84%) experienced CRS; 61 patients (48%) had maximum grade 1 and 46 (36%) had maximum grade ≥2 CRS (grade 2, n=39; grade 3, n=5; grade 4, n=1; and grade 5, n=1). Baseline characteristics were generally balanced among patients with maximum grade 1 and grade ≥2 (Table). Thirty patients (65%) with maximum grade ≥2 CRS progressed from initial grade 1 events, whereas 16 (35%) had initial grade ≥2. Median time to onset of CRS was the same (1 day) regardless of initial or maximum grade (Table). Median duration was 5.0 days in patients with maximum grade 1, 5.5 days in patients with maximum grade 2, and 11.0 days in patients with maximum grade ≥3 CRS. Median duration was shorter in patients with maximum grade 1 CRS than in those with initial grade 1 events that progressed to grade ≥2 (5.0 days vs 7.0 days). Most patients (83%) with maximum grade ≥2 CRS received at least 1 dose of tocilizumab and approximately one-third (35%) received corticosteroids, compared with 48% and 5%, respectively, of patients with maximum grade 1 CRS. A higher percentage of patients with initial grade ≥2 vs initial grade 1 CRS received multiple doses of tocilizumab (50% vs 37%) or at least 1 dose of corticosteroids (50% vs 27%). Conclusions: Almost half of the patients treated with ide-cel experienced maximum grade 1 CRS. Baseline disease and patient characteristics were similar among patients experiencing grade 1 and higher-grade CRS events. CRS was effectively managed with tocilizumab and corticosteroids, and more frequent use of these interventions in patients with grade ≥2 CRS was not associated with prolonged CRS events. The time to onset of CRS was predictable and equivalent in patients with maximum grade 1 and higher-grade CRS events. Duration of CRS was similar in patients with maximum grade 1 and 2 but was longer in patients with maximum grade ≥3 CRS. These data demonstrate the feasible management of CRS and thus confirm the tolerability of ide-cel in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Table 1 Disclosures Kansagra: Karyopharm: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria. Lin:Novartis: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vineti: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding. Berdeja:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellularity: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bioclinica: Consultancy; Bluebird: Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Kesios: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Constellation: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Servier: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glenmark: Research Funding; EMD Sorono: Research Funding; Vivolux: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; CURIS: Research Funding; Acetylon: Research Funding. Shah:GSK, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi, BMS, CareDx, Kite, Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma, Teneobio, Poseida, Nektar: Research Funding. Oriol:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy. Yakoub-Agha:Celgene: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Gilead/Kite: Honoraria, Other: travel support; Janssen: Honoraria. Einsele:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Rambaldi:BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); University of Milan: Current Employment; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. Received travel support., Research Funding; Omeros: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company). Advisory board and speaker fees from Pfizer.; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company). Research grant from Amgen Inc.; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Astellas: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support from Gilead.. Truppel-Hartmann:bluebird bio, Inc: Current Employment, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); F. Hoffmann La Roche: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Ended employment in the past 24 months. Rowe:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Current Employment. Wang:Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Agarwal:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Campbell:BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Lonial:Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Onyx: Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; JUNO Therapeutics: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Abbvie: Consultancy.

Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) occurs most commonly among the older population, with a median age of 69 years at diagnosis. Advanced age has been shown to negatively affect prognosis and limit treatment options for patients with hematologic malignancies, including MM. Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, bb2121), a BCMA-directed CAR T cell therapy, demonstrated deep and durable responses in the pivotal phase 2 KarMMa study of patients with triple-class exposed relapsed and refractory MM (RRMM; Munshi et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38[suppl, abstr]:8503). The overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, median duration of response (DOR), and median progression-free survival (PFS) were 73%, 33%, 10.7 months, and 8.8 months, respectively, among all 128 patients treated across the target dose levels of 150-450 × 106 CAR+ T cells, and 82%, 39%, 11.3 months, and 12.1 months at the highest target dose of 450 × 106 CAR+ T cells. The safety profile of ide-cel was consistent with the mechanism of action of CAR T cell therapies, with the most common toxicities across all dose levels being cytopenia (97%) and cytokine release syndrome (84%). In the present analyses, the efficacy and safety of ide-cel in elderly patients in the KarMMa study were evaluated. Methods: Patients enrolled in the KarMMa trial (NCT03361748) were required to have ≥3 prior lines of therapy, including an immunomodulatory drug, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody, and were refractory to their last regimen per International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria. Patients received ide-cel at target doses of 150, 300, or 450 × 106 CAR+ T cells after 3 days of lymphodepletion with cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m2/day) and fludarabine (30 mg/m2/day) followed by 2 days of rest. The primary endpoint was ORR, and the key secondary endpoint was CR rate. Additional secondary endpoints included DOR, PFS, and safety. Patients were classified into ≥65 years and ≥70 years subgroups for analysis. Responses were assessed according to IMWG guidelines, and DOR and PFS were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methods. Results: Of the 128 patients treated with ide-cel, 45 (35%) were aged ≥65 years and 20 (16%) were aged ≥70 years. The median age within these age groups was 69 years (range, 65-78) and 73 years (range, 70-78), the median number of prior antimyeloma regimens was 6 and 5, and the median time since initial diagnosis was 6.7 years and 6.1 years, respectively. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between age groups with the exception of tumor burden. Response rates for both age groups were comparable with those of the overall ide-cel treated population, with ORRs of 84% to 90% and CR rates of 31% to 35% (Table). Likewise, median DOR among responders in both age groups (10.9 months in patients aged ≥65 years and 11.0 months in patients aged ≥70 years) was similar to that of the overall ide-cel treated population. Median PFS was 8.6 months (95% CI, 4.9-12.2) in patients aged ≥65 years and 10.2 months (95% CI, 3.1-12.3) in patients aged ≥70 years. At the time of analysis, overall survival data were still immature. No new safety signals were observed in either of the older age groups compared with those in the overall ide-cel treated population (Table). Conclusions: These results demonstrate deep and durable responses with ide-cel treatment together with a manageable safety profile in triple-class exposed patients with RRMM aged ≥65 years and ≥70 years. Outcomes were comparable with those observed in the overall ide-cel treated population. These data suggest ide-cel is safe and effective in older patients and provide further evidence supporting ide-cel as a promising treatment option in RRMM. Figure 1 Disclosures Berdeja: Karyopharm: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Cellularity: Research Funding; Acetylon: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy; Teva: Research Funding; Servier: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; EMD Sorono: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glenmark: Research Funding; Kesios: Research Funding; Legend: Consultancy; Vivolux: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Bioclinica: Consultancy; Bluebird: Research Funding; CURIS: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding. Raje:Takeda: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Immuneel: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Immuneel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caribou: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; bluebird bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy. Siegel:Karyopharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celulatiry: Consultancy. Lin:Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Vineti: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding. Anderson:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Rodriguez-Otero:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria; Medscape: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company). Manier:Amgen: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Jenssen: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Einsele:Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Cavo:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel accomodations, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel accomodations, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Truppel-Hartmann:bluebird bio, Inc: Current Employment, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); F. Hoffmann La Roche: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Ended employment in the past 24 months. Rowe:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Current Employment. Sanford:BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Wang:Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Campbell:BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Jagannath:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Legend Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Preclinical Rationale: Myelofibrosis (MF) is a chronic myeloproliferative neoplasm for which there are limited therapies. TGFβ plays a pivotal role in the pathobiology of MF by not only promoting bone marrow fibrosis (BMF) and collagen deposition, but also by enhancing the dormancy of normal but not MF hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs). TGFβ has also previously been reported to inhibit normal megakaryocyte (MK) production (Bruno et al Blood 1998). TGFβ1 promotes the synthesis of collagen by normal human mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) and activates the TGFβ receptor I/SMAD pathway as well as non-canonical TGFβ pathways. We generated MKs from MF subject mononuclear cells (MNCs) and showed that they elaborated significantly greater levels of TGFβ1 than TGFβ2/3 TGFβ1 treatment reduced the numbers of hematopoietic colonies generated by normal but not MF MNCs. Treatment of MSCs with AVID200, a potent TGFβ1/3 protein trap, significantly decreased MSC proliferation, phosphorylation of SMAD2, and collagen expression. Robust expression of pSMAD2 was observed in the absence of exogenous TGFβ in normal donor or MF-MKs, Addition of AVID200 to -MKs decreased pSMAD2 without affecting total SMAD2/3, indicating that AVID200 blocks the effects of autocrine TGFβ produced by MKs and led to increased numbers of MKs. Moreover, treatment of primary MF MNCs with AVID200 led to increased numbers of progenitor cells with wild type JAK2 and a reduction of mutated colonies. AVID200 blocked TGFβ1-induced p57Kip2 expression and SMAD2 activation by MF MNCs allowing the normal progenitor cells to preferentially cycle, proliferate, and form hematopoietic colonies. Clinical Trial Design: Based on these findings, a phase 1 trial of AVID200 is ongoing in INT-2/high risk MF subjects resistant or intolerant to ruxolitinib; baseline platelet count of ≥ 25 x 109/L, and grade 2/3 BMF. Subjects received intravenous AVID200 (Lots A and B) in dose cohorts of 180 mg/m2 (A), 550 mg/m2 (A), 180 mg/m2 (B) on Day 1 of a 21 day cycle. Cohorts of 3 subjects with a target toxicity rate of 30% were enrolled to estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). A modified toxicity probability interval design was used. Response was assessed by IWG/ELN criteria after 6 cycles of AVID200. Subjects attaining at least a CI or SD with a decrease in BMF by ≥1 grade, continued AVID200. Clinical Trial Results: 10 subjects were enrolled (1 withdrew before receiving treatment) and 9 were treated with AVID200 and were evaluable for DLT assessment [Table1]. Median time after ruxolitinib discontinuation was 3.5 months (0.5-12.2). No DLTs were observed. Grade 3/4 AEs (regardless of attribution) were observed in 6 (66.7%) subjects. Grade 3/4 non-hematologic AEs observed were epistaxis (1, 11.1%), extraocular muscle paresis (1, 11.1%), fatigue (1, 11.1%) and rash (1, 11.1%). Grade 3/4 hematologic AEs were anemia (3, 33.3%) and thrombocytopenia (2, 22.2%) [Table 2]. The median number of cycles received was 5.7 (range 0 - 12). 5 subjects received 6+ cycles and were evaluable. CI occurred in 2 subjects [anemia, spleen and TSS (n=1); TSS (n=1)] 1 of which is still being treated, 2 subjects had SD, 1 subject with 21% blasts prior to study treatment had progressive MPN-BP. 4 subjects failed to reach response evaluation after 6 cycles, 2 had PD due to increasing splenomegaly, 1 subject received an allogeneic transplant and 1 is still being treated [Cycle 2]. The median platelet count at baseline was 114 (range: 42-290) and 159 after cycle 6 [Figure 1]. Maximum changes in platelets from baseline was +64% [range -73%, 169%] in all subjects. 7 subjects had an increase in platelets from baseline during treatment. 2 subjects normalized their platelet count from thrombocytopenic levels. The effect of AVID200 on BMF is currently being examined. 2 subjects remain on treatment. Conclusions: AVID200 a TGFβ1/3 protein trap is well tolerated in advanced MF subjects. Clinical responses were observed at the 550 mg dose and the expansion efficacy cohorts at doses 2 and 3 are enrolling 12 additional subjects. Furthermore, AVID200 therapy improved thrombocytopenia in MF subjects which may be due to AVID200 inhibiting the effects of TGFβ1 on normal MKpoiesis. Updated subject safety and efficacy data along with correlative data will be presented. Disclosures Mascarenhas: Celgene, Prelude, Galecto, Promedior, Geron, Constellation, and Incyte: Consultancy; Incyte, Kartos, Roche, Promedior, Merck, Merus, Arog, CTI Biopharma, Janssen, and PharmaEssentia: Other: Research funding (institution). Kuykendall:Blueprint Medicines: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Komrokji:Jazz: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria; Agios: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Geron: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Gerds:Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Imago Biosciences: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Apexx Oncology: Consultancy; AstraZeneca/MedImmune: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding. Migliaccio:Novartis: Research Funding. O'Connor-McCourt:Forbius: Current Employment. Tremblay:Forius: Current Employment. Nadler:Forbius: Consultancy; Nadler Pharma Associates: Current Employment; Symphogen: Consultancy; Iksuda Therapeutics: Consultancy; Tessa Therapeutics: Consultancy. Mesa:Celgene: Research Funding; Genetech: Research Funding; Samus: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; LaJolla Pharma: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Sierra Onc: Consultancy; Abbvie: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy. Hoffman:Forbius: Consultancy; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dompe: Research Funding; Protagonist: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Accumulating evidence suggests a relationship between endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer. Independent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) for endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer have identified 16 and 27 risk regions, respectively, four of which overlap between the two cancers. We aimed to identify joint endometrial and ovarian cancer risk loci by performing a meta-analysis of GWAS summary statistics from these two cancers. Methods: Using LDScore regression, we explored the genetic correlation between endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer. To identify loci associated with the risk of both cancers, we implemented a pipeline of statistical genetic analyses (i.e., inverse-variance meta-analysis, colocalization, and M-values) and performed analyses stratified by subtype. Candidate target genes were then prioritized using functional genomic data. Results: Genetic correlation analysis revealed significant genetic correlation between the two cancers (rG = 0.43, P = 2.66 × 10−5). We found seven loci associated with risk for both cancers (PBonferroni < 2.4 × 10−9). In addition, four novel subgenome-wide regions at 7p22.2, 7q22.1, 9p12, and 11q13.3 were identified (P < 5 × 10−7). Promoter-associated HiChIP chromatin loops from immortalized endometrium and ovarian cell lines and expression quantitative trait loci data highlighted candidate target genes for further investigation. Conclusions: Using cross-cancer GWAS meta-analysis, we have identified several joint endometrial and ovarian cancer risk loci and candidate target genes for future functional analysis. Impact: Our research highlights the shared genetic relationship between endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer. Further studies in larger sample sets are required to confirm our findings.

The excess intake of dietary sodium is a key modifiable factor for reducing disease progression in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD). The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that the scored salt questionnaire (SSQ; a frequency questionnaire of nine sodium-rich food types) is a valid instrument to identify high dietary salt intake in ADPKD. The performance of the SSQ was evaluated in adults with ADPKD with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 during the screening visit of the PREVENT-ADPKD trial. High dietary sodium intake (HSI) was defined by a mean 24-h urinary sodium excretion ≥ 100 mmol/day from two collections. The median 24-h urine sodium excretion was 132 mmol/day (IQR: 112–172 mmol/d) (n = 75; mean age: 44.6 ± 11.5 years old; 53% female), and HSI (86.7% of total) was associated with male gender and higher BMI and systolic blood pressure (p < 0.05). The SSQ score (73 ± 23; mean ± SD) was weakly correlated with log10 24-h urine sodium excretion (r = 0.29, p = 0.01). Receiving operating characteristic analysis showed that the optimal cut-off point in predicting HSI was an SSQ score of 74 (area under the curve 0.79; sensitivity 61.5%; specificity 90.0%; p < 0.01). The evaluation of the SSQ in participants with a BMI ≥ 25 (n = 46) improved the sensitivity (100%) and the specificity (100%). Consumers with an SSQ score ≥ 74 (n = 41) had higher relative percentage intake of processed meats/seafood and flavourings added to cooking (p < 0.05). In conclusion, the SSQ is a valid tool for identifying high dietary salt intake in ADPKD but its value proposition (over 24-h urinary sodium measurement) is that it may provide consumers and their healthcare providers with insight into the potential origin of sodium-rich food sources.

Abstract BackgroundNiemann–Pick disease type C (NPC) is a rare, progressive, neurodegenerative disease associated with neurovisceral manifestations resulting from lysosomal dysfunction and aberrant lipid accumulation. A multicentre, prospective observational study (ClinicalTrials.gov ID:NCT02435030) of individuals with genetically confirmed NPC1 or NPC2 receiving routine clinical care was conducted, to prospectively characterize and measure NPC disease progression and to investigate potential NPC-related biomarkers versus healthy individuals. Progression was measured using the abbreviated 5-domain NPC Clinical Severity Scale (NPCCSS), 17-domain NPCCSS and NPC clinical database (NPC-cdb) score. Cholesterol esterification and heat shock protein 70 (HSP70) levels were assessed from peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), cholestane-3β,5α-,6β-triol (cholestane-triol) from serum, and unesterified cholesterol from both PBMCs and skin biopsy samples. The inter- and intra-rater reliability of the 5-domain NPCCSS was assessed by 13 expert clinicians’ rating of four participants via video recordings, repeated after ≥3 weeks. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated.ResultsOf the 36 individuals with NPC (2–18 years) enrolled, 31 (86.1%) completed the 6–14-month observation period; 30/36 (83.3%) were receiving miglustat as part of routine clinical care. A mean (±SD) increase in 5-domain NPCCSS scores of 1.4 (±2.9) was observed, corresponding to an annualized progression rate of 1.5. On the 17-domain NPCCSS, a mean (±SD) progression of 2.7 (±4.0) was reported. Compared with healthy individuals, the NPC population had significantly lower levels of cholesterol esterification (p<0.0001), HSP70 (p<0.0001) and skin unesterified cholesterol (p=0.0006). Cholestane-triol levels were significantly higher in individuals with NPC versus healthy individuals (p=0.008) and correlated with the 5-domain NPCCSS (Spearman’s correlation coefficient=0.265, p=0.0411). The 5-domain NPCCSS showed high ICC agreement in inter-rater reliability (ICC=0.995) and intra-rater reliability (ICC=0.937). ConclusionsProgression rates observed were consistent with other reports on disease progression in NPC. The 5-domain NPCCSS reliability study supports its use as an abbreviated alternative to the 17-domain NPCCSS that focuses on the most relevant domains of the disease. The data support the use of cholestane-triol as a disease monitoring biomarker and the novel methods of measuring unesterified cholesterol could be applicable to support NPC diagnosis. Levels of HSP70 in individuals with NPC were significantly decreased compared with healthy individuals.

Abstract Objective Sjögren syndrome in children is a poorly understood autoimmune disease. We aimed to describe the clinical and diagnostic features of children diagnosed with Sjögren syndrome and explore how the 2016 ACR/EULAR classification criteria apply to this population. Methods An international workgroup retrospectively collected cases of Sjögren syndrome diagnosed under 18 years of age from 23 centres across eight nations. We analysed patterns of symptoms, diagnostic workup, and applied the 2016 ACR/EULAR classification criteria. Results We identified 300 children with Sjögren syndrome. The majority of patients n = 232 (77%) did not meet 2016 ACR/EULAR classification criteria, but n = 110 (37%) did not have sufficient testing done to even possibly achieve the score necessary to meet criteria. Even among those children with all criteria items tested, only 36% met criteria. The most common non-sicca symptoms were arthralgia [n = 161 (54%)] and parotitis [n = 140 (47%)] with parotitis inversely correlating with age. Conclusion Sjögren syndrome in children can present at any age. Recurrent or persistent parotitis and arthralgias are common symptoms that should prompt clinicians to consider the possibility of Sjögren syndrome. The majority of children diagnosed with Sjögren syndromes did not meet 2016 ACR/EULAR classification criteria. Comprehensive diagnostic testing from the 2016 ACR/EULAR criteria are not universally performed. This may lead to under-recognition and emphasizes a need for further research including creation of paediatric-specific classification criteria.

PURPOSE There is increasing interest in implementing digital systems for remote monitoring of patients’ symptoms during routine oncology practice. Information is limited about the clinical utility and user perceptions of these systems. METHODS PRO-TECT is a multicenter trial evaluating implementation of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) among adults with advanced and metastatic cancers receiving treatment at US community oncology practices (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03249090 ). Questions derived from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) are administered weekly by web or automated telephone system, with alerts to nurses for severe or worsening symptoms. To elicit user feedback, surveys were administered to participating patients and clinicians. RESULTS Among 496 patients across 26 practices, the majority found the system and questions easy to understand (95%), easy to use (93%), and relevant to their care (91%). Most patients reported that PRO information was used by their clinicians for care (70%), improved discussions with clinicians (73%), made them feel more in control of their own care (77%), and would recommend the system to other patients (89%). Scores for most patient feedback questions were significantly positively correlated with weekly PRO completion rates in both univariate and multivariable analyses. Among 57 nurses, most reported that PRO information was helpful for clinical documentation (79%), increased efficiency of patient discussions (84%), and was useful for patient care (75%). Among 39 oncologists, most found PRO information useful (91%), with 65% using PROs to guide patient discussions sometimes or often and 65% using PROs to make treatment decisions sometimes or often. CONCLUSION These findings support the clinical utility and value of implementing digital systems for monitoring PROs, including the PRO-CTCAE, in routine cancer care.