Citations

Background and Aims Altered bile acid (BA) homeostasis is an intrinsic facet of cholestatic liver diseases, but clinical usefulness of plasma BA assessment in primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) remains understudied. We performed BA profiling in a large retrospective cohort of patients with PSC and matched healthy controls, hypothesizing that plasma BA profiles vary among patients and have clinical utility. Approach and Results Plasma BA profiling was performed in the Clinical Biochemical Genetics Laboratory at Mayo Clinic using a mass spectrometry based assay. Cox proportional hazard (univariate) and gradient boosting machines (multivariable) models were used to evaluate whether BA variables predict 5‐year risk of hepatic decompensation (HD; defined as ascites, variceal hemorrhage, or encephalopathy). There were 400 patients with PSC and 302 controls in the derivation cohort (Mayo Clinic) and 108 patients with PSC in the validation cohort (Norwegian PSC Research Center). Patients with PSC had increased BA levels, conjugated fraction, and primary‐to‐secondary BA ratios relative to controls. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) increased total plasma BA level while lowering cholic acid and chenodeoxycholic acid concentrations. Patients without inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) had primary‐to‐secondary BA ratios between those of controls and patients with ulcerative colitis. HD risk was associated with increased concentration and conjugated fraction of many BA, whereas higher G:T conjugation ratios were protective. The machine‐learning model, PSC‐BA profile score (concordance statistic [C‐statistic], 0.95), predicted HD better than individual measures, including alkaline phosphatase, and performed well in validation (C‐statistic, 0.86). Conclusions Patients with PSC demonstrated alterations of plasma BA consistent with known mechanisms of cholestasis, UDCA treatment, and IBD. Notably, BA profiles predicted future HD, establishing the clinical potential of BA profiling, which may be suited for use in clinical trials.

ABSTRACT: Objective: Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) is estimated to occur in up to 1% of adolescents, with symptoms of dizziness, fatigue, and pain impacting daily functioning. However, many risk factors and symptoms for POTS overlap with those of youth with disordered eating, and adolescents with POTS may be at increased risk for developing eating disorders. Therefore, the present study sought to better understand this overlap. We hypothesized that patients with POTS would have higher than expected rates of weight change, restrictive eating patterns, and food sensitivities. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of 96 adolescents and young adults diagnosed with POTS who were participating in a 3-week intensive interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation program. We conducted descriptive and correlational statistical analyses on data from self-report measures, biomarkers of nutritional status, and abstracted information about eating and weight concerns from medical notes. Results: Nearly 3 quarters of participants described engaging in restrictive eating, and more than half of them described experiencing weight loss. They also endorsed experiencing food allergies, celiac disease, and eating disorder at higher rates than would be expected in the general population. One-fifth of the sample had experienced invasive interventions to correct for nutritional imbalances, such as having a feeding tube. Conclusion: Weight and eating are clear areas of risk for patients with orthostatic intolerance. It is essential that treatment team members thoroughly screen for eating disturbances and make recommendations that support regular and balanced eating habits.

Introduction: The American College of Cardiology developed the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) AFib Ablation Registry to assess prevalence, demographics, procedural management and outcomes of patients undergoing atrial fibrillation (AFib) ablation procedures. The objective of this registry’s first presentation is to summarize initial AFib Ablation Registry data regarding patient characteristics, procedural characteristics, and in-hospital adverse events and outcomes in those undergoing AFib ablation enrolled in the registry. Methods: Data were tabulated and summarized with simple proportions for categorical data, and mean ± standard deviation for continuous data. Results: A total of 31,345 patients who underwent AFib ablation were included in the registry (mean age 65.0 ± 10.4, 65.2% male, 57.6% paroxysmal AFib), with ablations performed at 120 hospitals, by 501 physicians. The mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of was 2.6 ± 1.6, and mean HAS-BLED score was 1.1 ± 0.9. Successful pulmonary vein isolation was able to be achieved in all veins in 94.5% of patients. The prevalence of any complication during procedural admission was 3.1%; the most common were hematoma (0.5%) and pericardial effusion requiring intervention (0.42%). The mean length of stay during the index admission (days) was 1.4 ± 7.6, and in-hospital death prevalence was 0.04% [FIGURE] . Conclusions: In conclusion, the NCDR AFib Ablation Registry is a large, national, multi-center, prospective cohort study to describe events outside the clinical trial or research setting, demonstrating successful pulmonary vein isolation in the majority of patients and a low prevalence of adverse events. Future studies from the registry will be able to help support and develop evidence-based guidelines for AFib ablation treatment and optimize patient outcomes.

Background: While HL is a highly curable cancer, patients (pts) with advanced stage disease experience increased risk of relapse. Delineation of prognosis is desired to compare cohorts and outcomes between trials, and to define groups of pts for whom reduction in treatment may be appropriate or where novel therapeutic approaches are needed. The International Prognostic Score (IPS), which was derived from a discovery set of 1,618 HL pts with complete data, was a seminal publication in the field (Hasenclever and Diehl NEJM 1998). However, these data were published >20 years ago with a significant minority of pts having received chemotherapy regimens no longer in clinical use. More contemporary analyses have shown altered utility of the IPS (e.g., Moccia JCO 2012; Diefenbach BJH 2015). In addition, prior studies identified bulk disease as an adverse prognostic factor in advanced stage HL (Laskar JCO 2004; Johnson JCO 2010). Our objective was to leverage individual pt data (IPD) from HoLISTIC (www.hodgkinconsortium.com) to discover a new, robust, and modern prognostication index for advanced-stage HL pts applicable to diverse settings across the world. Methods: We created a data repository of IPD from clinical trials for newly diagnosed HL pts, which includes 4,085 advanced-stage (III or IV) pts treated in 8 large, prospective studies completed in the modern era (ie, IIL HD9601: Gobbi JCO 2005; Italian HD2000: Federico JCO 2009; ECOG 2496: Gordon JCO 2013; SWOG 0816: Press JCO 2016; IIL HD0801: Zinzani JCO 2016; RATHL: Johnson NEJM 2016; GITIL HD0607: Gallamini JCO 2017; and COG AHOD 0831: Kelly BJH 2019) as well as prominent cancer registries (eg, the Mayo/Iowa Molecular Epidemiologic Resource (MER)). The discovery analysis herein included pts from the ECOG 2496, HD0801 IIL, GITIL HD0607, and SWOG 0816 studies. Furthermore, it was restricted to pts (n=1,279) on these trials with complete data for all 9 covariates of interest: age; sex; advanced stage (III vs IV); B symptoms; any bulk; and values of hemoglobin, white blood count (WBC), lymphocyte count, and albumin. Using Cox proportional hazard (PH) models, we evaluated univariate associations between 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with the aforementioned prognostic variables. Age was categorized based on plots and optimum model fit (c statistic). Lab values were dichotomized using cut-points from the 1998 IPS. Per convention, treatment factors were not included in the model. To identify independent prognostic factors of PFS and OS, a parsimonious Cox PH model was fit using backward selection of all potential risk factors (P<0.05). Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were reported. Kaplan Meier (KM) plots were also reported for risk factors in the multivariable (MVA) models to visualize differences. Results: Among all pts, characteristics included: median age of 32.9 years (IQR 25.4-44, range 15-83); 55% male; 49% stage IV; 63% B symptoms; 26% bulk >10 cm; 20% hemoglobin <10.5 g/dL; 15% WBC count ≥15,000/mm3; 9% lymphocyte count <600/mm3; and 63% with albumin <4g/dL. For analysis of age, we observed a U-shaped relationship with PFS (Fig A), which helped delineate optimal cut points of 15-24 years (23.1%), 25-49 years (61.4%), and ≥50 years (15.6%). In univariate analysis: age, stage, B symptoms, bulk, anemia, low lymphocyte count, and low albumin were associated with worse survival. In the MVA model, age >50 years, stage IV disease, B symptoms, and bulky disease were associated with worse PFS; and age >50 years, stage IV disease, bulky disease, anemia, and low albumin were associated with worse OS (Fig B). KM plots for age, stage, and bulk are presented in Fig C. Conclusions. In this international, multi-study analysis of advanced stage HL in the modern era, we identified several factors that were associated with both worse PFS and OS on MVA (ie, age, stage IV disease, and bulky disease). The finding of bulky disease as a significant prognostic factor warrants further investigation. In addition, we detected an age-related U-shaped impact on PFS with inferior outcomes for pts ages 15-25 years and ≥50 years, the latter in an increasing linear fashion. Altogether, these data will serve as a training cohort for a modern HL prognostication index that will be augmented and analyzed with a large independent validation cohort (vis-à-vis the remaining HL data in the HoLISTIC consortium), which will be presented at the ASH meeting. Disclosures Parsons: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Advani:Astra Zeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Cell Medica, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, KitePharma, Kyowa, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene, Forty Seven, Inc., Genentech/Roche, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Kura, Merck, Millenium, Pharmacyclics, Regeneron, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Federico:Spectrum: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mundipharma s.r.l.: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Cephalon/Teva: Research Funding. Friedberg:Acerta Pharma - A member of the AstraZeneca Group, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.: Other; Bayer: Consultancy; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Roche: Other: Travel expenses; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy. Hutchings:Genmab: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Daiichi: Research Funding; Sankyo: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Genmab: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Johnson:MorphoSys: Honoraria; Kymera: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Oncimmune: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Oncimmune: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Genmab: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers: Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Research Funding. Radford:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; ADCT: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Spouse; AstraZeneca: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Spouse; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Zinzani:MSD: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Eusapharma: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Kirin Kyowa: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Cerhan:NanoString: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding. Evens:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Research To Practice: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Mylteni: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Background: Ide-cel, a BCMA-directed CAR T cell therapy, showed tolerability and promising efficacy in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the first-in-human phase 1 CRB-401 study (Raje et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:1726) and the pivotal phase 2 KarMMa study (Munshi et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38[suppl, abstr]:8503). Ide-cel demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile with an overall response rate (ORR) of 85%, a complete response (CR) rate of 45%, and a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 11.8 months in the first 33 patients treated in CRB-401. Reported here are updated safety and efficacy results for 62 patients who received ide-cel in the ongoing CRB-401 study. Methods: CRB-401 (NCT02658929) is a 2-part, phase 1 dose-escalation and -expansion study. The expansion phase enrolled patients who had received ≥3 prior lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory drug, and an anti-CD38 antibody, and were refractory to their last line of therapy. Eligibility criteria for the dose-escalation phase were described previously (Raje et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:1726). After lymphodepletion with fludarabine (30 mg/m2/day) and cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m2/day) for 3 days followed by 2 days of rest, patients received ide-cel at target doses of 50, 150, 450, or 800 × 106 CAR+ T cells in the dose-escalation phase and 150 to 450 × 106 CAR+ T cells in the dose-expansion phase. The primary endpoint was safety. Secondary endpoints included tumor response according to the International Myeloma Working Group criteria. Exploratory endpoints included PFS, overall survival (OS), and minimal residual disease (MRD). Results: As of January 14, 2020, 21 patients had received ide-cel in the dose-escalation phase, and 41 patients received ide-cel in the dose-expansion phase. The median age was 61 years, and 44% of patients had high tumor burden (≥50% bone marrow CD138+ plasma cells). Of the 62 patients, 45% received >6 prior regimens, 90% were daratumumab-exposed, and 77% were daratumumab-refractory. As of the cutoff date, 13 patients were ongoing, and 49 patients had discontinued the study. Reasons for study discontinuation were progressive disease (58%), withdrawal by patients (10%), and death (10%). Based on safety and efficacy in the dose-escalation phase, target dose levels of 150 to 450 × 106 CAR+ T cells were selected for the dose-expansion phase. The most frequent adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (92%), cytokine release syndrome (CRS; 76%), anemia (76%), and thrombocytopenia (74%). The most frequent grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (89%), leukopenia (61%), anemia (57%), and thrombocytopenia (57%). Most CRS events were grade 1 or 2 (Table). Four patients (7%) had grade 3 CRS; there were no grade >3 CRS events. The incidence of CRS generally increased with target dose level. Neurologic toxicity (NT; clustered term) occurred in 27 patients (44%) and was primarily grade 1/2 with 1 patient having grade 3 and 1 patient having grade 4 NT. Among all 62 patients in the dose-escalation and -expansion phases, the ORR was 76%, including 24 patients (39%) with a CR or better and 40 patients (65%) with a very good partial response or better. The median duration of response was 10.3 months. Of 37 responders evaluable for MRD, 30 were MRD negative (≤10−4 nucleated cells) at 1 or more time point, and 7 responders were MRD positive. With a median follow-up of 14.7 months for all patients in the dose-escalation and dose-expansion phases, median PFS was 8.8 months and median OS was 34.2 months. Overall, a dose-dependent effect was observed on responses and survival outcomes, with greater efficacy reported at ≥150 × 106 CAR+ T cells (Table). Conclusions: Ide-cel demonstrated deep and durable responses in heavily-pretreated RRMM patients. Efficacy and safety reflect prior reports and support a favorable clinical benefit-risk profile for ide-cel at target dose levels ≥150 × 106 CAR+ T cells. Table Disclosures Lin: Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vineti: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Raje:Caribou: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy; Bluebird, Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Immuneel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Astrazeneca: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Berdeja:Abbvie: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Vivolux: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Bluebird: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Glenmark: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Legend: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy; Teva: Research Funding; Servier: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bioclinica: Consultancy; EMD Sorono: Research Funding; Acetylon: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellularity: Research Funding; Kesios: Research Funding; CURIS: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Siegel:Karyopharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celulatiry: Consultancy. Jagannath:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Legend Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Madduri:Legend: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Speaking Engagement, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kinevant: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Speaking Engagement, Speakers Bureau; Foundation Medicine: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Speaking Engagement, Speakers Bureau. Liedtke:Pfizer: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosenblatt:Celgene: Research Funding. Maus:arcellx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; kite: Consultancy, Research Funding. Massaro:bluebird, bio: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Petrocca:bluebird, bio: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Caia:Celgene a BMS company: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Yang:Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Celgene: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Campbell:BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Hege:Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Patents & Royalties: numerous, Research Funding; Celgene (acquired by Bristol Myers Squibb): Ended employment in the past 24 months; Mersana Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Arcus Biosciences (Former Board of Directors): Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months. Munshi:BMS: Consultancy; OncoPep: Consultancy, Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; C4: Current equity holder in private company; Amgen: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy. Kochenderfer:Celgene: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; bluebird, bio: Patents & Royalties; Kite, a Gilead company: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding.

Introduction: With a median overall survival (OS) measured in months, successful treatment of Richter's transformation (RT) of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) remains a major unmet medical need. While targeted agents, such as Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) monotherapy, have greatly improved outcomes for patients (pts) with CLL and some B-cell lymphomas, available BTKi therapies have been ineffective for RT, as well as for large cell transformation of indolent B-cell lymphomas and relapsed/refractory (r/r) DLBCL, which rapidly develop mechanisms of resistance by activation of downstream targets of BTKi or upregulation of alternative/parallel pathways. Focusing on a synthetic lethality approach via in vitro and in vivo studies, we discovered that concurrent inhibition of BTK & mTOR targets plus an IMiD synergistically kill malignant B-cells. DTRM-555 is an optimized oral triple combination of a novel irreversible BTKi DTRMWXHS-12 (DTRM-12), everolimus (EV) and pomalidomide (POM). This once daily therapy was tested in a stepwise, phase I, multicenter study in pts with the greatest unmet medical needs. Here we present results for this novel combination therapy in pts with RT, and r/r DLBCL. Methods: We conducted a phase I (3+3 design), first in human trial exploring DTRM-555 in adult pts with B-cell lymphomas with no available standard therapies (NCT02900716) at 6 US cancer centers. Our goal was to determine the optimal dose for DTRM-555. In phase Ia, an MTD was not reached for DTRM-12 monotherapy; In phase Ib and expansion cohorts, we evaluated double (DTRM-12/EV at 200mg/5mg or 300mg/5mg) and triple combinations (DTRM-12/EV/POM at 200mg/5mg/2mg or 300mg/5mg/2mg) administered once daily for 21 days of a 28-day cycle, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety and the dose limiting toxicity (DLT) period was cycle 1 (28 days). Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR; Cheson 2014), duration of response (DOR), and DTRM-12 pharmacokinetics. The trial began on 9/27/2016 and completed enrollment with evaluable follow-up data cut-off date on 08/06/2020. Results: 39 pts were enrolled and treated, including 24 with RT (n=12) or r/r DLBCL (n=12). The safety analyses included all 39 pts treated with combination therapies while efficacy analyses were focused on RT and r/r DLBCL. Baseline characteristics (n=39): 66% male, median age 71 years (range 43-94) and 94% white. For the entire study cohort, median number of prior therapies was 3 (range 1-10), 49% had been treated with prior BTKi monotherapy,13% prior CAR-T or stem cell transplant (SCT) and 59% ≥1 prior small molecule targeted agent. For pts with RT and r/r DLBCL (n=24), median prior therapies were 5 (range 1-10) and 2 (range 10), respectively. Table 1 summarizes prior therapies for the 24 RT and r/r DLBCL pts. Table 2 describes Grade 3 and 4 related AEs for 39 pts treated with the combination therapies. AEs were manageable and similar to known AEs for BTKi, EV or POM, with a total of 4 DLTs observed with combination therapies. The most common AEs were hematological events; specifically, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and anemia. The MTD of DTRM-555 was determined to be DTRM-12 200mg, EV 5mg, & POM 2mg. For 11 evaluable RT pts, ORR was 45% (1 CR, 4 PR); 1 RT pt has not undergone first response assessment. For 10 evaluable DLBCL pts, ORR was 60% (2 CR, 4 PR). Responders with RT or r/r DLBCL have durable responses (Figure 1). Kaplan Meier estimated median duration of response for RT and DLBCL pts was 15 months as of the cut-off. Dose dependent DTRM-12 drug plasma levels were observed in all arms with minimal inter-pt variability. Conclusions: This clinical trial met its primary endpoint. The once-daily oral triple combination therapy DTRM-555 has an acceptable safety profile. Encouraging clinical activity was observed in several high-risk, multi-refractory pts with RT (median 5 prior therapies, ORR 45%) or r/r DLBCL (median 2 prior therapies, ORR 60%), including pts previously treated with targeted therapies, cellular therapies, checkpoint inhibitors and other experimental agents. A phase II US expansion study is underway targeting pts with RT, r/r DLBCL, r/r transformed follicular lymphoma and BTKi/BCL2 inhibitor exposed r/r CLL pts. Disclosures Mato: Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Schuster:AlloGene, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Juno/Celgene, Loxo Oncology, Nordic Nanovector, Novartis, Tessa Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis, Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding. Ding:DTRM: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Brander:Tolero: Research Funding; NCCN: Other; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Other; NCCN: Other; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Other, Research Funding; Juno/Celgene/BMS: Other, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; DTRM: Other, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; BeiGene: Other, Research Funding; Ascentage: Other, Research Funding; ArQule: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Other. Tun:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acrotech: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding. He:DTRM Biopharma LLC: Current Employment. Kearney:DTRM Biopharma LLC: Current Employment. Gui:DTRM Biopharma LLC: Current Employment. McKinlay:DTRM Biopharma LLC: Current Employment. Roeker:American Society of Hematology: Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: spouse with minority ownership interest ; Abbott Laboratories: Other: spouse with minority ownership interest . Huntington:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; DTRM: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Astrazeneca: Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer seldom presents at the splenic flexure. Small series on left flexure tumors reported a high occurrence of negative prognostic factors called into question as causes of poor prognosis. However, because of the small number of cases, no definite conclusions can be drawn. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare clinical-pathologic characteristics and short- and long-term outcomes of left flexure tumors with other colonic locations. DESIGN: This was a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent surgery for tumors at the splenic flexure. Each tumor was paired in a 1 to 1 fashion with a right-sided and sigmoid tumor. SETTINGS: The study was conducted in 10 international centers. PATIENTS: A total of 641 patients with left flexure tumors were included in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall survival and cancer-specific survival were measured. RESULTS: Left flexure tumors presented more frequently with stenosis (30.5%; p < 0.001), with lesions infiltrating beyond the serosa (21.9%; p = 0.001) and with a high rate of mucinous histology (8.8%; p = 0.001). Looking at long-term prognosis, no differences were observed among the 3 groups, both considering overall and cancer-specific survival. However, left flexure tumors recurred more frequently as peritoneal carcinomatosis (20.6%; p < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited because of its retrospective nature. CONCLUSIONS: Although left flexure tumors display several negative prognostic factors, they are not characterized by a worse prognosis compared with other colon cancer locations. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B395. CARACTERÍSTICAS CLÍNICO-PATOLÓGICAS Y RESULTADOS A LARGO PLAZO DEL CÁNCER DE COLON DE ÁNGULO IZQUIERDO: UN ANÁLISIS RETROSPECTIVO DE UNA COHORTE MULTICÉNTRICA INTERNACIONAL ANTECEDENTES: El cáncer colorrectal rara vez se presenta en el ángulo esplénico. Pequeñas series sobre tumores de ángulo izquierdo informaron una alta incidencia de factores pronósticos negativos cuestionados como causas de mal pronóstico. Sin embargo, debido al pequeño número de casos, no se pueden sacar conclusiones definitivas. OBJETIVO: El objetivo de este estudio fue comparar las características clínico-patológicas, los resultados a corto y largo plazo de los tumores de ángulo izquierdo con otras ubicaciones de colon. DISEÑO: Análisis retrospectivo de pacientes consecutivos que se sometieron a cirugía por tumores en el ángulo esplénico. Cada tumor se emparejó de forma individual con un tumor del lado derecho y sigmoide. AJUSTES: El estudio se realizó en 10 centros internacionales. PACIENTES: Se incluyeron en el estudio un total de 641 pacientes con tumores del ángulo izquierdo. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Supervivencia general y específica del cáncer RESULTADOS: Los tumores de ángulo izquierda se presentaron con mayor frecuencia con estenosis (30.5%, p <0.001), con lesiones infiltradas más allá de la serosa (21.9%, p = 0.001), y con una alta tasa de histología mucinosa (8.8%, p = 0.001). En cuanto al pronóstico a largo plazo, no se observaron diferencias entre los tres grupos, considerando la supervivencia general y específica del cáncer. Sin embargo, los tumores de ángulo izquierdo recurrieron con mayor frecuencia como carcinomatosis peritoneal (20,6%; p <0,001). LIMITACIONES: Este estudio fue limitado debido a su naturaleza retrospectiva. CONCLUSIONES: Aunque los tumores de ángulo izquierdo muestran varios factores pronósticos negativos, no se caracterizan por un peor pronóstico en comparación con otras ubicaciones de cáncer de colon. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B395.