Citations

3557 Background: The goal of this study was to evaluate the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of a single dose of PolyPEPI1018 as an add-on to maintenance therapy in subjects with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PolyPEPI1018 is a peptide vaccine containing 12 unique epitopes derived from 7 conserved cancer testis antigens (CTAs) frequently expressed in mCRC. These epitopes were designed to be Personal EPItopes (PEPIs), i.e. predicted by our novel PEPI test to bind to at least three autologous HLA alleles and more likely to induce T-cell responses than epitopes presented by a single HLA. Methods: mCRC patients in the first line setting received the vaccine (dose: 0.2 mg/peptide) just after the transition to maintenance therapy with a fluoropyrimidine and bevacizumab. Vaccine-specific T-cell responses were first predicted by the PEPI test (using the patient’s complete HLA genotype and antigen expression rate) and then measured by ELISpot after one cycle of vaccination. Results: Eleven patients were vaccinated with PolyPEPI1018. The most common adverse events were transient skin reactions (local inflammation at the site of the injections, e.g. erythema, redness and itchiness) and flu-like syndrome. No grade 3 or higher adverse events related to the vaccine occurred. Initial analysis on 4 patients demonstrated that T-cell responses were elicited by 96% of vaccine peptides. The overall percentage agreement between PEPI test-predicted and Elispot-measured CD8+ T cell responses was 71%, consistent with our retrospective analysis on 64 vaccine clinical trials involving 1,790 patients. Two of these 4 patients had unexpected tumor size reduction. Based on these encouraging results, the trial was amended to administer 3 doses of PolyPEPI1018 given 12 weeks apart. Conclusions: PolyPEPI1018 combined with maintenance therapy was safe and well-tolerated in mCRC patients. Unprecedented immune responses were induced after single dose, with broad CRC-specific T cell responses and high accuracy prediction of CD8+ T cell responses. This promising activity in mCRC patients led to a trial amendment to administer 3 doses of PolyPEPI1018 in combination with systemic therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT03391232.

e14237 Background: Targeting myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), key mediators of intrinsic and adaptive immune resistance, remains a significant challenge in kidney cancer immunotherapy. One potential driver of MDSC mediated tumor immunosuppression is the cytokine interleukin-1 beta (IL-1β). Although large cancer prevention studies show that targeting IL1 decreases cancer risk, the exact mechanism of anti-IL-1 mediated anti-tumor efficacy is not yet defined. To understand the immunogenic effects of IL-1β blockade and effects on MDSCs, we used the RENCA model of RCC. Methods: We inoculated BALB/c mice with 1x106 RENCA cells. On Day +10 we treated mice (n = 8/group) with vehicle, αPD1, αIL1β, cabozantinib, combination αPD1/αIL1β, or cabozantinib/αIL1β. We harvested day +18 tumors to quantify tumor size and immune cells by flow cytometry. We then isolated immune cells for differential gene expression profiling by RNAseq. Results: Treatment with αIL1β significantly decreased tumor size compared to vehicle or αPD1 monotherapy. Combining αPD1/αIL1β or cabozantinib/αIL1β potentiated the anti-tumor effects of αPD1 or cabozantinib monotherapy respectively. Anti-IL1β therapy decreased polymorphonuclear (PMN)-MDSC infiltration (αIL1β: 0.76% +/- 0.21 vs. vehicle: 1.89% +/- 0.37, P = 0.014). Relative to PD1 monotherapy, combining αPD1 and αIL1β decreased PMN-MDSCs (αPD1: 2.14% +/- 0.56 vs αPD1/αIL1β: 0.91% +/- 0.15, P = 0.033) and increased M1-like tumor associated macrophages (TAM) (αPD1: 0.798% +/- 0.21 vs. αPD1/αIL1β: 12.04% +/- 2.9, P = 0.0008). Gene expression profiling from sorted immune cells from αIL1β treated tumors revealed multiple differentially regulated cytokines including interleukin-6, IFN-γ, and IL-10. Conclusions: Blockade of IL-1β depletes intratumoral PMN-MDSCs and increases M1-like TAM with minimal effects observed on the T cell compartment. Treatment with cabozantinib or αPD1 in combination with αIL1β led to sustained control of tumor growth. IL-1β represents a promising target for kidney cancer immunotherapy. Based on the preclinical data, a clinical trial of neoadjuvant αPD1 and αIL1β therapy is planned for patients with high risk RCC.

2002 Background: This study sought to update the predictive significance of the three WHO-defined molecular glioma subgroups ( IDHwt, IDHmt/noncodel, and IDHmt/codel) in the subset of specimens available for analysis in NRG Oncology/RTOG 9802, a phase III trial of high-risk low-grade gliomas (LGGs) treated with radiation (RT) with and without PCV after biopsy/surgical resection. Notably, this is the first phase III study to evaluate the predictive value of the WHO subgroups in LGGs using prospectively-collected, well-annotated long-term overall survival data, in a post-hoc analysis. Methods: IDH1/2 mutation status was determined by immunohistochemistry and/or next-generation sequencing. 1p/19q status was determined by Oncoscan and/or 450K methylation data. Treatment effects on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) by marker status were determined by the Cox proportional hazard model and tested using the log-rank test in a secondary and exploratory analysis. Results: Of all the randomized eligible high-risk G2 patients (N = 251) in NRG Oncology/RTOG 9802, 106(42%) patients had tissue available with sufficient quality DNA for profiling. Of these, 80(75%) were IDHmut; 43(41%) were IDHmut/non-co-deleted, 37(35%) were IDHmut/co-deleted, and 26(24%) were IDHwt. Upon univariate analyses, no significant difference in either PFS or OS was observed with the addition of PCV in the IDHwt subgroup. Both the IDHmut/non-co-deleted and IDHmut/co-deleted subgroups were significantly correlated with longer PFS (HR = 0.32; p = 0.003; HR = 0.13; p < 0.001) and OS (HR = 0.38; p = 0.013; HR = 0.21; p = 0.029) in the RT plus PCV arm, respectively. Conclusions: Our analyses suggest that both IDHmut/non-co-deleted and IDHmut/co-deleted subgroups received benefit from treatment with PCV although sample size is limited and analyses are post-hoc. Our results also support the notion that IDHwt high-risk LGG patients do not benefit from the addition of PCV to RT. Funding: U10CA180868, U10CA180822, and U24CA196067. Also, R01CA108633, R01CA169368, RC2CA148190, U10CA180850-01, BTFC, OSU-CCC (all to AC). Clinical trial information: NCT00003375.

1079 Background: Brain metastases (BM) are a common and fatal complication of breast cancer but survival varies widely based on various prognostic factors (PF). Hence, patient counseling and therapeutic decisions should be individualized. We previously published a prognostic index (Breast GPA) based on cohort A (1985-2007, n = 642), updated it with tumor subtype in cohort B (1993-2010, n = 400) and are now updating it with a larger contemporary cohort (C). Methods: A multi-institutional (19) multi-national (3) retrospective database of 2473 breast cancer patients with BM diagnosed from 1/1/2006-12/31/2017 was created and compared to our prior cohorts. Demographic, clinical, molecular factors, tumor subtype and treatment were correlated with survival. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were calculated and compared with log-rank tests. Results: The median survival (MS) for cohorts A, B and C improved over time [12, 14 and 16 mo, respectively ( < 0.01)] despite the subtype distribution becoming less favorable: Luminal B (ER/PR/HER2+) decreased from 26% to 21%; HER2 (HER2+/ER/PR-) decreased from 31% to 17%, Luminal A (ER/PR+/HER2-) increased from 20% to 31%; Basal (ER/PR/HER2-) was unchanged at 24%.MS by subtype improved from 21 to 27 mo in Luminal B, 18 to 25 mo in HER2, 10 to 14 mo in Luminal A and 6 to 9 mo in Basal tumors. The number of BM was 1 in 35%, ≤4 in 67% and > 10 in 18%. PF significant for survival were tumor subtype, age, KPS, number of BM and extracranial metastases (ECM) (all < 0.01). Surprisingly, Hispanic women (7%) showed improved survival (p < 0.01). BRCA1 was mutated in 57/533 (11%) and those patients showed a trend (0.16) toward improved survival. Treatment patterns have changed: the use of whole brain radiation therapy decreased from 71% to 67% to 47% in cohorts A, B and C, respectively. Conclusions: Despite the shift to less favorable tumor subtypes, MS has improvedbut varies widely by diagnosis-specific PF. Compared to prior cohorts, number of BM and ECM were identified as new PF. Ethnic, genetic and treatment differences between the eras are apparent. The updated Breast GPA, based on these data, and the correlation between BRCA1 and tumor subtype will be presented.

PURPOSE: Subspecialty training programs rarely are available for advanced practice providers (APPs). New curricula are needed to prepare APPs with the skills and knowledge required to deliver high-quality care in hematology and blood and marrow transplantation (BMT). METHODS: A Web-based needs assessment survey was distributed to APPs currently working in hematology and BMT at three Mayo Clinic sites (Rochester, MN; Scottsdale, AZ; and Jacksonville, FL). The survey assessed participants’ perceptions of readiness to practice in hematology after completion of their APP education and identified APP learning needs. RESULTS: Of 68 APPs, 49 (72%; 34 nurse practitioners, 15 physician assistants) completed the survey. Twenty-eight APPs (57%) were new graduates, and 17 (35%) had no prior experience in hematology/BMT. All APPs held a master’s degree or higher (doctorate, 31%). Thirty-nine (80%) reported that less than 5% of their APP school curriculum was hematology focused. More than 90% felt unprepared to practice in hematology or BMT after their APP education and believed that hematology-specific training could improve their competency as providers and positively affect job satisfaction. APPs reported that they would like more formal training in the following areas of clinical focus: malignant and benign hematologic disorders, hematopathology, palliative care, transfusion medicine, infectious disease, and hematology-related pharmacology. They also preferred the following learning strategies: active learning from patient care, case-based teaching, and experience during hospital rounds. CONCLUSION: This needs-based assessment project confirmed the necessity to develop a hematology-specific fellowship for APPs and helped to optimize the curriculum.

Abstract Purpose: Myelofibrosis is characterized by bone marrow fibrosis, atypical megakaryocytes, splenomegaly, constitutional symptoms, thrombotic and hemorrhagic complications, and a risk of evolution to acute leukemia. The JAK kinase inhibitor ruxolitinib provides therapeutic benefit, but the effects are limited. The purpose of this study was to determine whether targeting AURKA, which has been shown to increase maturation of atypical megakaryocytes, has potential benefit for patients with myelofibrosis. Patients and Methods: Twenty-four patients with myelofibrosis were enrolled in a phase I study at three centers. The objective of the study was to evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of alisertib. Correlative studies involved assessment of the effect of alisertib on the megakaryocyte lineage, allele burden, and fibrosis. Results: In addition to being well tolerated, alisertib reduced splenomegaly and symptom burden in 29% and 32% of patients, respectively, despite not consistently reducing the degree of inflammatory cytokines. Moreover, alisertib normalized megakaryocytes and reduced fibrosis in 5 of 7 patients for whom sequential marrows were available. Alisertib also decreased the mutant allele burden in a subset of patients. Conclusions: Given the limitations of ruxolitinib, novel therapies are needed for myelofibrosis. In this study, alisertib provided clinical benefit and exhibited the expected on-target effect on the megakaryocyte lineage, resulting in normalization of these cells and reduced fibrosis in the majority of patients for which sequential marrows were available. Thus, AURKA inhibition should be further developed as a therapeutic option in myelofibrosis. See related commentary by Piszczatowski and Steidl, p. 4868