Citations

Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) survivors are at heightened risk for poor short- and long-term health outcomes. Even among those who recover after an AKI episode, the risk for chronic kidney disease is 4- to 6-fold higher than in patients without AKI, underscoring the importance of identifying methods to improve AKI survivorship. Objective: The purpose of this report was to describe the development and feasibility of a novel multidisciplinary approach to caring for AKI survivors at care transitions (ACT). Design: Observational process improvement initiative. Setting: Single academic medical center in the United States. Patients: The studied population was adults with stage 3 AKI not discharging on dialysis who were established with a primary care provider (PCP) at our institution. Methods: An electronic health record tool was developed prior to implementation to identify AKI survivors. The ACT program encompassed engaging patients in the hospital, delivering education by nephrology-trained nurses before discharge, completing recommended laboratory testing after discharge, and conducting structured kidney-focused follow-up with a pharmacist and a PCP within 7 to 14 days after discharge. Patients could be referred for nephrology evaluation at the discretion of the PCP. Results: Preliminary data demonstrated that most AKI survivors of interest could be identified, educated, and followed up with this model. This strategy appeared feasible, scalable, and maximized the unique expertise of each member of the multidisciplinary team. Limitations: Small sample size, future assessment of process, clinical, and patient-reported outcomes needed. Conclusions: The multidisciplinary ACT workflow supported by clinical decision support was feasible and addressed gaps in existing care transition models. Team-based care delivery in primary care appears to be a mechanism to extend the capacity for kidney health monitoring for AKI survivors.

The NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer include up-to-date guidelines for clinical management of patients with carcinoma in situ, invasive breast cancer, Paget disease, phyllodes tumor, inflammatory breast cancer, male breast cancer, and breast cancer during pregnancy. These guidelines are developed by a multidisciplinary panel of representatives from NCCN Member Institutions with breast cancer–focused expertise in the fields of medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, pathology, reconstructive surgery, and patient advocacy. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the most recent updates to recommendations for adjuvant systemic therapy in patients with nonmetastatic, early-stage, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

Over the past few years, the NCCN Guidelines for Melanoma: Cutaneous have been expanded to include pathways for treatment of microscopic satellitosis (added in v2.2020), and the following Principles sections: Molecular Testing (added in v2.2019), Systemic Therapy Considerations (added in v2.2020), and Brain Metastases Management (added in v3.2020). The v1.2021 update included additional modifications of these sections and notable revisions to Principles of: Pathology, Surgical Margins for Wide Excision of Primary Melanoma, Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy, Completion/Therapeutic Lymph Node Dissection, and Radiation Therapy. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss the important changes to pathology and surgery recommendations, as well as additions to systemic therapy options for patients with advanced disease.

Abstract Monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL) is one of the most common pre-malignant conditions and is characterized by a circulating population of clonal B-cells with an absolute clonal B-cell count < 5x10 9/L and no evidence of lymphadenopathy, organomegaly, or cytopenias. MBL can be classified by the immunophenotype: CLL-like MBL (CD5+, CD20dim), atypical MBL (CD5+, CD20+), or non-CLL-like MBL (CD5-, CD20+), as well as by the size of the clone (low-count or high-count) with low-count MBL (LC-MBL) defined as clonal B-cell <0.5x10 9/L or percent clonal B-cell count <85% out of total B-cell count. The prevalence of MBL varies depending on detection methods and population tested. In a Spanish screening study of 608 individuals, they identified 73 MBLs (12%) with CLL-like MBL; moreover, these authors also evaluated overall survival (OS) compared to 290 individuals without MBL and found a significantly shorter OS among these predominantly LC-MBLs. Here, we evaluate the prevalence and OS of LC-MBL in a large screening cohort of 8,297 individuals. Study participants from the Mayo Clinic Biobank, a large-scale biorepository of adult patients, who had no prior history of hematologic malignancy, provided blood samples between 7/2009 to 4/2021. Stored peripheral blood mononuclear cells were screened for MBL with an eight-color flow cytometry assay capable of detecting clonal B-cell event to the 0.005% level. We classified each MBL by immunophenotype as CLL-like MBL, atypical MBL, and non-CLL-like MBL. Individuals with more than one immunophenotype were classified into one immunophenotype based on the following hierarchy: CLL-like MBL, then atypical MBL, then non-CLL like MBL. Based on previously published evidence, individuals were also classified by clonal counts using the percent clonal B-cell count <85% out of the total B-cell count to define LC-MBL. Individuals were followed from sample date to the earliest of death, loss to follow-up, or 5/31/2021. OS for LC-MBL and controls (individuals who screened negative for MBL) was assessed by Kaplan-Meier method. Age- and sex-adjusted OS was analyzed using inverse weights methods. Cox regression was used to calculate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusted for age and sex. We screened 8,297 individuals 40 years or older (median age 67 years, 39% male) and identified 1,326 (16%) with LC-MBL and 6,651 (80%) controls. Those individuals detected with high-count MBL (N=90, 1%) or individuals who had insufficient cells for flow cytometry interpretation (N=230, 3%) were excluded from subsequent analyses. The prevalence of LC-MBL was higher in males (21%) than females (14%; p<0.01) and significantly increased with age (p<0.01) ranging from 3% among those 40-49 years, 10% among those 50-59 years, 15% among those 60-69 years, 23% among those 70-79 years, and 29% for those 80+ years. Sixty-one individuals had clones with more than one type of immunophenotype. Based on our hierarchy, CLL-like MBL was the most common (N=1,155), followed by non-CLL-like (N=168) and atypical MBL (N=67). The median follow-up time in our cohort was 26 months (range 0-142), and 432 individuals had subsequently died. The 5-year and 10-year OS adjusted for age and sex among LC-MBLs was 95% and 87%, respectively; control estimates were 95% and 84%, respectively. We did not observe a significant difference in OS between those individuals with LC-MBL versus controls (HR=0.98, CI=0.77-1.24, P=0.84, Fig 1a), nor when we stratified individuals by age <65 (P=0.77) or age >= 65 (P=0.68). Among females, OS was longer among LC-MBL compared to controls (HR=0.61, CI=0.38-0.97, P=0.04); but no evidence of a difference in OS among males was observed (HR=1.22, CI=0.92-1.62, P=0.17). When we evaluated OS by MBL immunophenotype, we observed no statistically significant difference (Fig 1b, log rank P=0.44). When we stratified the MBLs by immunophenotype versus controls, we also did not observe a difference: CLL-like (HR=0.91, CI=0.71-1.18, P=0.5), atypical (HR=1.73, CI=0.92-3.27, P=0.09), non-CLL like (HR=0.98, CI=0.58-1.66, P=0.95). In the largest MBL screening cohort to date, LC-MBL was a common condition among adults 40 years or older reaching a prevalence as high as 29% among individuals 80 years of age or older. OS among those with and without LC-MBL was similar, regardless of immunophenotype and age. The longer survival in females with MBL versus controls requires further evaluation. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Parikh: Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Verastem Oncology, and AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics, MorphoSys, Janssen, AstraZeneca, TG Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, AbbVie, and Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding. Kay: Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Targeted Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CytomX Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shanafelt: Genentech, Pharmacyclics: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: TP53 aberrations, including mutations and deletion of 17p (del17p), are important adverse prognostic markers in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Prevalence of TP53 aberrations ranges from 7-11% in untreated CLL and increases with disease progression and treatment. Among CLL patients with TP53 aberrations, co-occurrence of TP53 mutations with del(17p) is common. CLL patients with TP53 mutations or del(17p) have significantly worse outcomes when compared to wild-type patients. Previous studies, focusing on CLL patients at time of treatment, are mixed as to whether a single or more than one TP53 aberration impacts outcomes. TP53 is less well studied in monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL), an asymptomatic pre-malignant state of CLL. Del(17p) occurs in 3-4% of MBL individuals, and a study of 54 MBL individuals reported a 2% mutation frequency in TP53. Here we estimated prevalence and evaluated the impact of TP53 aberrations in a large cohort MBL or untreated CLL individuals. Methods : Patients with CLL or MBL diagnosed between 2000 and 2019 from the Mayo Clinic CLL Resource with pre-treatment peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) collected within two years of diagnosis were considered. DNA was extracted from PBMCs with purity >80% or with sorted CD5+/CD19+ clonal cells. The entire coding regions of 59 CLL driver genes were paired end sequenced. Median coverage depth was >1000x per nucleotide, allowing for detection of mutations with variant allelic fraction (VAF) as low as 1%. Somatic mutations were called using MuTect2 in tumor-only mode, and high impact mutations (frameshift, nonsense, and splicing variants) and missense mutations in CLL hot spots were selected. Somatic mutations and FISH del(17p) were used to define TP53 state for each patient: 1) wild-type [no TP53 mutations and normal del(17p)], 2) single-hit [one TP53 mutation or del(17p)], or 3) multi-hit [multiple TP53 mutations or TP53 mutation and del(17p)]. Time to first treatment (TTFT) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed by TP53 state. TTFT and OS were defined as time from sample collection to first treatment or death, respectively, or last follow-up date. Median TTFT and OS was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. We used Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals for TTFT and OS associations. The models were adjusted for known adverse prognostic factors including clinical diagnosis (CLL or MBL), age at diagnosis, Rai stage, b2 microglobulin, and IGHV mutation status. Results: Individuals with CLL (N=597) or MBL (N=285) were analyzed for prevalence of TP53 mutations and del(17p). We found 58 CLL patients (9.7%) and 15 MBL individuals (5.3%) had TP53 mutations. The median VAF in CLL was 30.9% (<10% VAF, n=21) and in MBL was 13.5% (<10% VAF, n=7). Del(17p) was present in 37 patients with CLL (6.2%) and 7 individuals with MBL (2.7%). In total, 86 CLL/MBL patients had a TP53 mutation and/or del(17p): 56.8% (48 patients) were single-hit and 44.2% (38 patients) were multi-hit (Fig. 1a). Patients with any TP53 aberration had shorter TTFT than wild-type patients (median 2.3 vs 9.4 years). Among patients with TP53 aberrations, median TTFT was shorter in multi-hit patients (20 events, 1.8 years) compared to single-hit patients (24 events, 3.2 years) (Fig. 1b). In Cox regression, single-hit (HR = 1.7 [1.1-2.6]) and multi-hit (HR = 1.8 [1.1-2.9]) patients had shorter TTFT compared to wild-type patients after adjusting for covariates (Fig. 1c). Multi-hit patients also had shorter OS compared to wild-type patients, while OS in single-hit patients did not significantly differ from wild-type patients (Fig. 1d). Median OS was 5.5 years in multi-hit patients (22 deaths) compared to 15.1 years in wild-type patients (196 deaths) and 14.3 years in single-hit patients (15 deaths). In the OS model adjusted for covariates, multi-hit patients had a significant increased risk (HR = 2.6 [1.6-4.1]), but single-hit patients did not (HR = 1.4 [0.8-2.5]) compared with wild-type patients (Fig. 1e). OS HRs remained stable after censoring at time of treatment. Both TTFT and OS HRs were consistent when mutations with VAF < 10% were excluded. Conclusions: This study suggests single versus multi-hit TP53 aberrations may be important for prognostic outcomes in untreated CLL and MBL patients. Prognostic metrics may need to consider single versus multi-hit TP53 aberrations and include TP53 mutations with low VAF. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Cerhan: Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Parikh: Pharmacyclics, MorphoSys, Janssen, AstraZeneca, TG Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, AbbVie, and Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Verastem Oncology, and AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kay: MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Targeted Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CytomX Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Introduction Monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL), monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), and clonal hematopoiesis (CH) are three common premalignant hematological conditions. MBL is a precursor to chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), MGUS is a precursor to both multiple myeloma (MM) and Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM), and CH is a possible precursor to myeloid disease. All three conditions are independently associated with aging. Furthermore, there is evidence that all three conditions are associated with increased risk of infection. The relationship among these conditions, the prevalence with which they co-exist, and the association between the number of premalignant conditions and risk of infection is unknown. Methods Study participants from the Mayo Clinic Biobank, a large-scale biorepository of adult patients, provided a peripheral blood sample between 7/14/2009 to 06/18/2015. Individuals were screened for MBL using eight-color flow cytometry capable of detecting clonal B-cells to the 0.005% level. MGUS was screened using a matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight (MALDI-TOF) assay. CH was screened using a targeted sequencing panel of 42 CH-associated genes with at least 1000x read depth and the ability to detect variant allele fractions down to 1%. All study participants resided in Olmsted County, Minnesota, the county that includes Mayo Clinic. Serious infection, defined as hospitalization due to infection, was abstracted from medical records from the time of sample collection through 12/31/2020 or date of death. The medical record abstractor collecting data was blinded to condition. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between each of the conditions. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CI to assess the association between number of premalignant conditions with risk of infection. All analyses were adjusted for age at sample collection and sex. Results A total of 407 individuals (55% male, median age 68 years) were screened for all three conditions. The prevalence was 19.9% (n=81) for MBL, 14.5% (n=59) for MGUS, and 25.6% (n=104) for CH. When we evaluated the association between each of the conditions, we found no evidence of an association between the prevalence of CH and risk of MBL (OR=0.79, 95% CI: 0.43-1.42), CH and risk of MGUS (OR=1.24, 95% CI: 0.66-2.27), or MGUS and risk of MBL (OR=1.32, 95% CI:0.66-2.52). The prevalence of co-existence of these conditions was assessed by grouping individuals based on their condition or conditions (Figure 1A). We found that 197 (48.4%) study participants had at least one premalignant condition and 10.6% had two or more. Individuals with 2 or more conditions were the oldest (median age 74 years), followed by 1 condition (median 69 years) and 0 conditions (median 67 years, P-trend <0.001). Sex was not significantly different across the groups, with 55%, 58%, and 47% male for 0, 1, and 2 conditions, respectively. Medical record abstraction identified 97 serious infection events in 80 individuals. Medical records were not available on 7 individuals. The most common infections were urinary tract (20 events), pneumonia (14 events), and cellulitis (14 events). Median follow-up time was 10.6 years (range 0.1-11.5 years). Compared to individuals with no condition, MBL (HR=1.75, 95% CI: 1.06-2.88) and MGUS (HR=1.75, 95% CI: 1.04-2.93) were associated with increased risk of serious infection. We found no evidence of an association with CH (HR=1.15, 95% CI: 0.71-1.87). When grouped by the number of conditions, we observed a significant trend (P-trend <0.01, Figure 1B) in risk of serious infections by the number of conditions: individuals with 1 condition had a 35% increased risk of infections (HR=1.35, 95% CI:0.83-2.20) and individuals with 2 or more conditions had a 2.6-fold increased risk (HR=2.58, 95% CI: 1.37-4.84). Discussion At least one premalignant condition was present in nearly 50% of the study population, with CH being the most prevalent. No evidence of a relationship between any of the three conditions was observed. However, we found increased susceptibility to serious infections as the number of conditions increased with individuals with at least two conditions had 2.6-fold increased risk of infections. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Parikh: Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Verastem Oncology, and AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics, MorphoSys, Janssen, AstraZeneca, TG Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, AbbVie, and Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding. Dispenzieri: Takeda: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Murray: Mayo Clinic: Other: Has received patents for the Mass-Fix technology which has been licensed to the Binding Site with potential royalties.. Kumar: Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Cerhan: Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding. Kay: TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Targeted Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CytomX Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shanafelt: Genentech, Pharmacyclics: Research Funding.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Sparse data exist regarding I+V in an off-trial setting, particularly in patients (pts) with progression of disease on either I or V as single agent treatment. The 1-year overall survival (OS) rates with V monotherapy following I range from 75%-91% (Eyre et al, BJH 2019; Jones et al, Lancet Oncol 2018); however, longer-term follow-up of these or other patient cohorts treated with V after I has not yet been reported. Effective options in double-refractory pts are lacking when a clinical trial is not feasible. Here, we report our experience with I+V in these patient groups. METHODS After IRB approval, we reviewed the records of pts seen at Mayo Clinic (between 4/2012-1/2021) who received I+V therapy off-trial for CLL progression. Pts treated with I+V for Richter's transformation were excluded. Time to next treatment (TTNT) was measured from I+V treatment start date to the date of next treatment start or last known treatment status with death as a competing risk. OS was measured from I+V start date until date of death or when the patient was last known alive; OS was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS Thirty-three pts with progressive CLL were treated with I+V (median duration 13.3 months [95% CI: 7.1 months-not estimable (NE)]). The median age was 70 years (range 47-86), 6 (18%) were women, and 20 (65%) had del(17p) or TP53 mutation. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 3 (range 1-15). Additional characteristics at the time of I+V start are shown in Table 1. Median follow-up from start of I+V was 23.8 months. Among 22 pts with prior progression on I only (V-naïve), the median duration of I+V was 14.8 months (95% CI 7.6 months-NE). The median duration on either I or V from the start of combination was 20.3 months (95% CI 8.3 months-NE). The median TTNT was 25.1 months (Figure 1A). Four pts proceeded to cellular therapy (alloSCT [n=3], CAR-T [n=1]) while on I+V. Next therapy (n=9) consisted of Richter transformation treatment (n=2), chemotherapy plus continued I+V (n=1), anti-CD20 plus continued I+V (n=1), duvelisib + I (n=1), TP-0903 + I (n=1), reintroduction of I at disease progression after previously stopping I during I+V therapy (n=1), and reintroduction of I (n=1) or V (n=1) at disease progression after previously stopping I+V. Of 9 pts who did not receive subsequent therapy, 4 pts remain on I+V (median duration 16.4 months), 4 pts continued V after discontinuing I (median duration on V from start of I+V was 21.5 months), and 1 pt discontinued I+V following a second cancer diagnosis and died without receiving additional CLL-directed treatment. Eleven pts received I+V in the double-refractory setting; 9 pts had prior disease progression on sequential I then V and 2 pts had prior disease progression on sequential V then I. The median duration of I+V was 7.5 months (95% CI 4.3 months-NE), and the median duration of either agent from I+V start was 10.8 months (95% CI 7.1 months-NE). The median TTNT was 14.0 months (Figure 1A). Eight pts required additional treatment, consisting of PI3K inhibitor (n=2), anti-CD20 added to I+V (n=1), CAR-T (n=1), anti-CD20 with (n=1) or without (n=1) bendamustine added to continued I, and Richter transformation treatment (n=2). One pt continues I+V (17.4 months ongoing) without further treatment. Two pts died from disease progression without receiving additional treatment. The median OS of all 33 pts was 27.4 months (95% CI 25.9 months-NE; Figure 1B). The median OS of the 22 pts with prior progression on I (V-naïve) was 47.1 months (95% CI 27.7 months-NE), and the median OS of the 11 pts with prior progression on I and V separately was 27.0 months (95% CI 15.5 months-NE). In univariate analyses, prior progression on V was a predictor of shorter OS (HR=3.9; 95% CI 1.4-11.2; p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS Combination I+V therapy in heavily pre-treated CLL pts who have disease progression after I provides durable benefit with a median OS approaching 4 years. In the double-refractory setting, repurposing both drugs as combination I+V therapy can be a useful strategy, despite the short-term disease control, for pts where clinical trial options are limited or not available. Further examination of these approaches in larger cohorts and understanding the operative resistance mechanisms in pts with double-refractory disease are key next studies. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Ding: Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; DTRM: Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Chanan-Khan: BeiGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Honoraria; Ascentage, Starton, Cellectar, NonoDev, Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties: Tabi; Ascentage: Research Funding; Cellectar: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals, NonoDev, Starton: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; BieGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Consultancy. Kenderian: Humanigen, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Wang: TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ailawadhi: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Koehler: AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kay: AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Targeted Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Research Funding; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; CytomX Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Parikh: Pharmacyclics, MorphoSys, Janssen, AstraZeneca, TG Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, AbbVie, and Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Verastem Oncology, and AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: Combination ibrutinib and venetoclax in patients with relapsed CLL.

Abstract Background It is unclear how acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-directed therapies are used in children with life-threatening COVID-19 in US hospitals. We described characteristics of children hospitalized in the intensive care unit or step-down unit (ICU/SDU) who received COVID-19-directed therapies and the specific therapies administered. Methods Between March 15, 2020 and December 27, 2020, children <18 years of age in the ICU/SDU with acute COVID-19 at 48 pediatric hospitals in the United States were identified. Demographics, laboratory values, and clinical course were compared in children who did and did not receive COVID-19-directed therapies. Trends in COVID-19-directed therapies over time were evaluated. Results Of 424 children in the ICU/SDU, 235 (55%) received COVID-19-directed therapies. Children who received COVID-19-directed therapies were older than those who did not receive COVID-19-directed therapies (13.3 [5.6-16.2] vs 9.8 [0.65-15.9] years), more had underlying medical conditions (188 [80%] vs 104 [55%]; difference = 25% [95% CI: 16% to 34%]), more received respiratory support (206 [88%] vs 71 [38%]; difference = 50% [95% CI: 34% to 56%]), and more died (8 [3.4%] vs 0). Of the 235 children receiving COVID-19-directed therapies, 172 (73%) received systemic steroids and 150 (64%) received remdesivir, with rising remdesivir use over the study period (14% in March/April to 57% November/December). Conclusion Despite the lack of pediatric data evaluating treatments for COVID-19 in critically ill children, more than half of children requiring intensive or high acuity care received COVID-19-directed therapies.

Abstract Background: ABO blood group is associated with pancreatic cancer risk. Whether ABO blood group alone or when combined with inherited mutation status of index pancreatic cancer cases (probands) can enhance pancreatic cancer risk estimation in first-degree relatives (FDR) is unclear. We examined FDRs' risk for pancreatic cancer based on probands' ABO blood group and probands' cancer susceptibility gene mutation status. Methods: Data on 23,739 FDRs, identified through 3,268 pancreatic cancer probands, were analyzed. Probands' ABO blood groups were determined serologically or genetically, and 20 cancer susceptibility genes were used to classify probands as “mutation-positive” or “mutation-negative.” SIRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated, comparing observed pancreatic cancer cases in the FDRs with the number expected in SEER-21 (reference population). Results: Overall, FDRs had 2-fold risk of pancreatic cancer (SIR = 2.00; 95% CI = 1.79–2.22). Pancreatic cancer risk was higher in FDRs of mutation-positive (SIR = 3.80; 95% CI = 2.81–5.02) than mutation-negative (SIR = 1.79; 95% CI = 1.57–2.04) probands (P < 0.001). The magnitude of risk did not differ by ABO blood group alone (SIRblood-group-O = 1.57; 95% CI = 1.20–2.03, SIRnon-O = 1.83; 95% CI = 1.53–2.17; P = 0.33). Among FDRs of probands with non-O blood group, pancreatic cancer risk was higher in FDRs of mutation-positive (SIR = 3.98; 95% CI = 2.62–5.80) than mutation-negative (SIR = 1.66; 95% CI = 1.35–2.03) probands (P < 0.001), but risk magnitudes were statistically similar when probands had blood group O (SIRmutation-positive = 2.65; 95% CI = 1.09–5.47, SIRmutation-negative = 1.48; 95% CI = 1.06–5.47; P = 0.16). Conclusions: There is a range of pancreatic cancer risk to FDRs according to probands' germline mutation status and ABO blood group, ranging from 1.48 for FDRs of probands with blood group O and mutation-negative to 3.98 for FDRs of probands with non-O blood group and mutation-positive. Impact: Combined ABO blood group and germline mutation status of probands can inform pancreatic cancer risk estimation in FDRs.

AbstractMonoclonal B‐cell lymphocytosis (MBL) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) are clonal B‐cell disorders associated with an increased risk of infections and impaired vaccination responses. We investigated the immunogenicity of recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) in these patients. Individuals with MBL/untreated CLL and Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi)‐treated CLL patients were given two doses of RZV separated by 2 months. Responses assessed at 3 and 12 months from the first dose of RZV by an anti‐glycoprotein E ELISA antibody assay and by dual‐color Interferon‐γ and Interleukin‐2FLUOROSPOT assays were compared to historic controls matched by age and sex. About 62 patients (37 MBL/untreated CLL and 25 BTKi‐treated CLL) were enrolled with a median age of 68 years at vaccination. An antibody response at 3 months was seen in 45% of participants, which was significantly lower compared to historic controls (63%, p = .03). The antibody response did not significantly differ between MBL/untreated CLL and BTKi‐treated CLL (51% vs. 36%, respectively, p = .23). The CD4+ T‐cell response to vaccination was significantly lower in study participants compared to controls (54% vs. 96%, p < .001), mainly due to lower responses among BTKi‐treated patients compared to untreated MBL/CLL (32% vs. 73%, p = .008). Overall, only 29% of participants achieved combined antibody and cellular responses to RZV. Among participants with response assessment at 12 months (n = 47), 24% had antibody titers below the response threshold. Hypogammaglobulinemia and BTKi therapy were associated with reduced T‐cell responses in a univariate analysis. Strategies to improve vaccine response to RZV among MBL/CLL patients are needed.