Citations

Although undisputed for its anti-inflammatory and immune system boosting properties, vitamin C remains an inconsistently investigated nutrient in the United States. However, subclinical inadequacies may partly explain increased inflammation and decreased immune function within the population. This secondary analysis cross-sectional study used the 2003–2006 NHANES surveys to identify more clearly the association between plasma vitamin C and clinical biomarkers of acute and chronic inflammation C-reactive protein (CRP) and red cell distribution width (RDW). From plasma vitamin C levels separated into five defined categories (deficiency, hypovitaminosis, inadequate, adequate, and saturating), ANOVA tests identified significant differences in means in all insufficient vitamin C categories (deficiency, hypovitaminosis, and inadequate) and both CRP and RDW in 7607 study participants. There were also statistically significant differences in means between sufficient plasma vitamin C levels (adequate and saturating categories) and CRP. Significant differences were not identified between adequate and saturating plasma vitamin C levels and RDW. Although inadequate levels of vitamin C may not exhibit overt signs or symptoms of deficiency, differences in mean levels identified between inflammatory biomarkers suggest a closer examination of those considered at risk for inflammatory-driven diseases. Likewise, the subclinical levels of inflammation presented in this study provide evidence to support ranges for further clinical inflammation surveillance.

Abstract Background: The etiology of colorectal cancer is not fully understood. Methods: Using genetic variants and metabolomics data including 217 metabolites from the Framingham Heart Study (n = 1,357), we built genetic prediction models for circulating metabolites. Models with prediction R2 > 0.01 (Nmetabolite = 58) were applied to predict levels of metabolites in two large consortia with a combined sample size of approximately 46,300 cases and 59,200 controls of European and approximately 21,700 cases and 47,400 controls of East Asian (EA) descent. Genetically predicted levels of metabolites were evaluated for their associations with colorectal cancer risk in logistic regressions within each racial group, after which the results were combined by meta-analysis. Results: Of the 58 metabolites tested, 24 metabolites were significantly associated with colorectal cancer risk [Benjamini–Hochberg FDR (BH-FDR) < 0.05] in the European population (ORs ranged from 0.91 to 1.06; P values ranged from 0.02 to 6.4 × 10−8). Twenty one of the 24 associations were replicated in the EA population (ORs ranged from 0.26 to 1.69, BH-FDR < 0.05). In addition, the genetically predicted levels of C16:0 cholesteryl ester was significantly associated with colorectal cancer risk in the EA population only (OREA: 1.94, 95% CI, 1.60−2.36, P = 2.6 × 10−11; OREUR: 1.01, 95% CI, 0.99−1.04, P = 0.3). Nineteen of the 25 metabolites were glycerophospholipids and triacylglycerols (TAG). Eighteen associations exhibited significant heterogeneity between the two racial groups (PEUR-EA-Het < 0.005), which were more strongly associated in the EA population. This integrative study suggested a potential role of lipids, especially certain glycerophospholipids and TAGs, in the etiology of colorectal cancer. Conclusions: This study identified potential novel risk biomarkers for colorectal cancer by integrating genetics and circulating metabolomics data. Impact: The identified metabolites could be developed into new tools for risk assessment of colorectal cancer in both European and EA populations.

Background: Although prophylactic antibiotics are considered the standard of care, data with regard to the comparative efficacy of specific antibiotics in the prevention of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) have remained limited. This study evaluated whether perioperative antibiotic choice affects rates of PJI development in shoulder arthroplasty. Methods: From 2000 to 2019, all primary shoulder arthroplasty types (hemiarthroplasty, anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty, reverse shoulder arthroplasty) performed for elective and trauma indications with perioperative antibiotic data and a minimum follow-up of 2 years were identified from a single institution. Demographic characteristics, PJI risk factors, and PJI-free survivorship data were retrieved. Multivariable analyses were conducted to determine the association between the antibiotic administered and the development of PJI. Results: Of 7,713 shoulder arthroplasties, cefazolin was administered in 6,879 procedures (89.2%) and non-cefazolin antibiotics consisting of vancomycin (465 procedures [6.0%]), clindamycin (345 procedures [4.5%]), and alternative regimens (24 procedures [0.31%]) were administered in 834 procedures (10.8%). PJIs occurred in 101 shoulder arthroplasties (1.3%), with Cutibacterium acnes as the most common pathogen (44 procedures [43.6%]). PJI-free survivorship was greater in shoulder arthroplasties in which cefazolin was administered compared with those in which non-cefazolin antibiotics were administered, with 0.91% greater survival free of PJI at 1 month, 1.4% at 1 year, and 2.7% at 15 years (p < 0.001). Cefazolin administration, compared with non-cefazolin administration, was associated with a 69% reduction in all-cause PJI risk and a 78% reduction in C. acnes PJI risk (p < 0.001). A higher risk of PJI for both groups was observed with vancomycin; the hazard ratio [HR] was 2.32 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.22 to 4.40; p = 0.010) for all-cause PJI and 2.94 (95% CI, 1.12 to 7.49; p = 0.028) for C. acnes PJI. A higher risk of PJI was also observed for both groups for clindamycin; the HR was 5.07 (95% CI, 2.83 to 9.05; p < 0.001) for all-cause PJI and 8.01 (95% CI, 3.63 to 17.42; p < 0.001) for C. acnes PJI. Conclusions: In primary shoulder arthroplasty, cefazolin administration was associated with a significantly lower rate of PJI compared with non-cefazolin alternatives, including both vancomycin and clindamycin. These risk discrepancies were observed across all infectious pathogens and may be considered even greater when C. acnes was the infecting bacterium. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Gastric cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Over 95% of gastric cancers are adenocarcinomas, which are typically classified based on anatomic location and histologic type. Gastric cancer generally carries a poor prognosis because it is often diagnosed at an advanced stage. Systemic therapy can provide palliation, improved survival, and enhanced quality of life in patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. The implementation of biomarker testing, especially analysis of HER2 status, microsatellite instability (MSI) status, and the expression of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), has had a significant impact on clinical practice and patient care. Targeted therapies including trastuzumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab have produced encouraging results in clinical trials for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. Palliative management, which may include systemic therapy, chemoradiation, and/or best supportive care, is recommended for all patients with unresectable or metastatic cancer. Multidisciplinary team management is essential for all patients with localized gastric cancer. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Gastric Cancer focuses on the management of unresectable locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic disease.

359881 Background: Sunitinib is approved for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) after imatinib failure. Ripretinib, a broad-spectrum KIT and PDGFRA switch-control tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is indicated for the treatment of adult patients (pts) with GIST who received prior treatment with 3 or more TKIs, including imatinib. We compared the efficacy and safety of ripretinib vs sunitinib in pts with advanced GIST who progressed on or were intolerant to imatinib. Methods: This multicenter, global, randomized, open-label phase 3 study (NCT03673501) enrolled adult pts with GIST who progressed on or had intolerance to imatinib. Pts were randomized 1:1 to ripretinib 150 mg once daily (QD) or sunitinib 50 mg QD (4 wks on/2 wks off). Randomization was stratified by KIT mutational status and imatinib intolerance. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiologic review (IRR) using modified RECIST version 1.1. Key secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) by IRR and overall survival (OS). Hierarchical testing was performed for primary and key secondary endpoints in a prespecified sequence; testing pts with a KIT exon 11 primary mutation (Ex11 intention-to-treat [ITT] population) preceded the all-patient (AP) ITT population. Data cutoff was 1 Sep 2021; final analyses of PFS and ORR and the first interim analysis of OS were conducted. Results: A total of 453 pts were randomized to ripretinib (n = 226; Ex11 ITT, n = 163) or sunitinib (n = 227; Ex11 ITT, n = 164). Median age was 60 yrs (range 18–88) and most pts were white (66.2%) males (62.0%). PFS was not statistically different between ripretinib and sunitinib in the Ex11 ITT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.88, 95% CI 0.66, 1.16; P = 0.36; median 8.3 vs 7.0 mos) or in the AP populations (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.82, 1.33; P = 0.72; median 8.0 vs 8.3 mos). ORR was numerically higher for ripretinib vs sunitinib in the Ex11 ITT (23.9% vs 14.6%; difference 9.3%, 95% CI 0.7, 17.8; nominal P = 0.03) and AP ITT populations (21.7% vs 17.6%; difference 4.2%, 95% CI −3.2, 11.5; nominal P = 0.27). OS data was highly immature; median OS was not reached in either arm. Fewer pts in the ripretinib arm experienced Grade 3-4 (G3-4) treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) vs sunitinib (41.3% vs 65.6%). Among G3-4 TEAEs with a difference ≥5% between arms, ripretinib had fewer events vs sunitinib (hypertension [8.5% vs 26.7%], palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia [1.3% vs 10.0%], neutropenia [0% vs 6.3%], and neutrophil count decreased [0% vs 7.2%]). Conclusions: The PFS in both arms was longer than PFS achieved by sunitinib in its pivotal phase 3 trial. While the PFS for ripretinib did not meet the primary endpoint of superiority vs sunitinib, meaningful clinical activity and fewer G3-4 TEAEs were observed in pts with advanced GIST treated with ripretinib after imatinib failure. Clinical trial information: NCT03673501.

379 Background: A single priming dose of T (anti-CTLA-4) added to D (anti-PD-L1) in the STRIDE (Single T Regular Interval D) regimen, formerly T300+D, showed encouraging clinical activity and limited toxicity in a phase 2 uHCC study (Study 22, NCT02519348), suggesting single exposure to T is sufficient to improve upon D activity. HIMALAYA (NCT03298451) evaluated the efficacy and safety of STRIDE or D vs sorafenib (S) in uHCC. Methods: HIMALAYA is an open-label, multicenter, phase 3 study, in which pts with uHCC and no prior systemic therapy were initially randomized to STRIDE (T 300 mg plus D 1500 mg [one dose] plus D 1500 mg every 4 weeks [Q4W]), D (1500 mg Q4W), S (400 mg twice daily), or T 75 mg Q4W (4 doses) plus D 1500 mg Q4W (T75+D). Recruitment to T75+D ceased after a planned analysis of Study 22 showed T75+D did not meaningfully differ from D. The primary objective was overall survival (OS) for STRIDE vs S. The secondary objective was OS noninferiority (NI) of D to S (NI margin: 1.08). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR; RECIST v.1.1), duration of response (DoR), and safety. Results: In total, 1171 pts were randomized to STRIDE (N=393), D (N=389), or S (N=389). At data cutoff (DCO), the primary objective was met: OS was significantly improved for STRIDE vs S (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 96% confidence interval [CI], 0.65–0.92; p=0.0035; Table). D met the objective of OS NI to S (HR, 0.86; 96% CI, 0.73–1.03). ORRs were higher for STRIDE (20.1%) and D (17.0%) than for S (5.1%). No new safety signals were identified. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 25.8% (STRIDE), 12.9% (D), and 36.9% (S) of pts. Grade 3/4 hepatic TRAEs occurred in 5.9% (STRIDE), 5.2% (D), and 4.5% (S) of pts. No TRAE of esophageal varices hemorrhage occurred. Rates of TRAEs leading to discontinuation were 8.2% (STRIDE), 4.1% (D), and 11.0% (S). Conclusions: HIMALAYA was the first large phase 3 trial with a diverse, representative uHCC population and extensive long-term follow-up to assess both mono- and combination immunotherapy. D was noninferior to S with favorable safety. The combination of a single priming dose of T plus D in STRIDE displayed superior efficacy and a favorable benefit-risk profile vs S. STRIDE is a proposed, novel, first-line standard of care systemic therapy for uHCC. Clinical trial information: NCT03298451. [Table: see text]

344 Background: ICI with anti-PD-1 therapy was approved by the US FDA as 1st/2nd-line treatment of advanced GEC regardless of PD-L1 status. It is argued that patients (pts) with PD-L1-low GEC do not benefit from ICI. To avoid spurious exclusion of pts, we systematically reviewed phase 3 trials to assess the magnitude and consistency of PD-L1 to predict benefit from ICI. We also examined other potential predictive factors to understand their magnitude and consistency in comparison with PD-L1 status. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register were searched for all randomized clinical trials (RCT; 2000-2021) in advanced GEC comparing ICI, alone or with chemotherapy, vs standard of care (SOC). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Study screening, data abstraction, and bias assessment were done independently by two reviewers per PRISMA guidelines. The mean HR for ICI vs SOC was calculated by random effects model. The predictive value of a factor was quantified using relative magnitude and consistency (table). Results: 14 RCTs at low risk of bias were included (N = 9,210 pts; KN62, CM649, CM648, ESCORT1st, KN590, ATT4, JAV100, KN181, KN61, ATT3, ESCORT, RATIONALE302, JAV300, ATT2). 6 trials were 1st-line, 8 were after 1st-line. Treatment comparisons were ICI + chemo vs chemo (6 trials), ICI vs chemo (9 trials), and ICI vs placebo (1 trial). ICI was always anti-PD-1/-L1 (1 trial also had anti-CTLA-4). Table shows primary results. To enable head to head comparisons, subgroup analyses of trials containing both levels of a factor or having similar design were done and generally yielded consistent results. Conclusions: PD-L1 CPS is the strongest predictive biomarker, after MSI, for OS benefit from ICI-containing therapy vs SOC. Additional research on gender is warranted.[Table: see text]

Abstract Background Several therapies are recommended by NCCN/ESMO guidelines for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT)-ineligible patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). In the single-arm, Phase II L-MIND study (NCT02399085), the chemotherapy-free regimen tafasitamab + lenalidomide (LEN) demonstrated efficacy for this patient population. In the absence of randomized clinical trial data, RE-MIND2 (NCT04697160), an observational, retrospective cohort study, compared patient outcomes from L-MIND with matched patient populations treated with NCCN/ESMO recommended therapies for ASCT-ineligible patients with R/R DLBCL. Methods Data were retrospectively collected between 1 April and 13 November 2020 from academic and public hospitals, as well as private practices in North America, Europe and Asia Pacific. To ensure consistency with L-MIND I/E criteria, patients aged ≥18 years with histologically confirmed DLBCL and who had received ≥2 systemic therapies for DLBCL (including ≥1 anti-CD20 therapy) were enrolled. For the main analysis, patients from the L-MIND tafasitamab + LEN cohort were matched with patients from the RE-MIND2 observational cohort using estimated propensity score-based 1:1 nearest neighbor matching, balanced for six baseline characteristics: age (&lt;70 vs ≥70 years), refractoriness to last line of therapy (yes vs no), number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs 2/3), history of primary refractoriness (yes vs no), prior ASCT (yes vs no), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0-1 vs ≥2). A sensitivity analysis was performed using an inverse probability of treatment weighting method calculating the average effect of the treatment on the treated, to generate balanced cohorts based on nine baseline characteristics: age, refractoriness to last line of therapy, number of previous lines of therapy, history of primary refractoriness, prior ASCT, Ann Arbor Stage (I/II vs III/IV), elevated LDH (yes vs no), neutropenia (yes vs no), and anemia (yes vs no). Additional sensitivity analyses accounting for missing baseline characteristics using multiple imputation technique were performed. Data are presented for tafasitamab + LEN versus polatuzumab vedotin + bendamustine + rituximab (pola-BR), rituximab + LEN (R2), and CD19 CAR-T therapies (CAR-T). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), complete response rate, progression-free survival and duration of response. Results Of 3,454 patients enrolled from 200 sites, 106, 106, and 149 patients were treated with pola-BR, R2, and CAR-T, respectively. For the comparative analysis, matched patient pairs were created using 1:1 nearest neighbor matching with a caliper. Matched pairs consisted of: tafasitamab + LEN vs pola-BR, n=24 pairs; vs R2, n=33 pairs; and vs CAR-T, n=37 pairs. A significant OS benefit was associated with tafasitamab + LEN compared to pola-BR (HR: 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20-0.96; p=0.038) and R2 (HR=0.44, 95% CI: 0.22-0.84; p=0.014) (Figure 1A-B). There was no significant difference in OS benefit between tafasitamab + LEN and CAR-T (HR=0.95, 95% CI: 0.47-1.91; p=0.891) (Figure 1C). ORR was 62.5% (15/24) for tafasitamab + LEN vs 58.3% (14/24) for pola-BR (p=1.000), 63.6% (21/33) vs 30.3% (10/33) for R2 (p=0.013), and 59.5% (22/37) vs 75.7% (28/37) for CAR-T (p=0.214). Improved outcomes were also observed with tafasitamab + LEN for other secondary endpoints (Table 1). Results are consistent with those obtained in the sensitivity analyses. Conclusions The results of this retrospective cohort analysis suggest that the novel tafasitamab + LEN combination may significantly improve health outcomes, with a prolonged survival benefit for ASCT-ineligible R/R DLBCL patients, relative to NCCN/ESMO recommended therapies. Tafasitamab + LEN improved survival outcomes compared with pola-BR and R2 in closely matched patient populations. Comparable outcomes were observed for tafasitamab + LEN vs CAR-T. Although based on limited patient numbers, these data may be clinically relevant in the context of emerging therapies for R/R DLBCL. While this study design does not replace randomized data, it remains more rigorous than inter-trial comparison. The limitations of comparing clinical trial and matched retrospective real-world data will be discussed. Funding: MorphoSys AG. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Nowakowski: Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding. Joffe: AstraZeneca. Epizyme: Consultancy. Fleury: Abbvie, Astrazeneca, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Kite-Gilead, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Seattle Genetics: Other: conference and advisory role. Peters: AbbVie, Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria. Greil: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Daiichi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Sandoz: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ku: Roche: Consultancy; Antegene: Consultancy; Genor Biopharma: Consultancy. Marks: Kite/Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Other: Meeting attendance; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy. Kim: AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Zinzani: BeiGene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: 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; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, 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; Verastem: 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; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, 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, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ImmuneDesign: Consultancy, 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; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Trotman: Beigene: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; PCYC Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Sabatelli: Incyte: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Huang: MorphoSys: Current Employment. Waltl: MorphoSys: Current Employment. Winderlich: MorphoSys: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ambarkhane: MorphoSys: Current Employment, Other: Support for attending meetings/travel. Kurukulasuriya: MorphoSys: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Support for attending meetings/travel. Cordoba: Pfizer: Research Funding; Kyowa-Kirin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ADCTherapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Hess: Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genmab: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; EUSA: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Salles: Miltneiy: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Velosbio: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Allogene: Consultancy; Ipsen: Consultancy; Loxo: Consultancy; Rapt: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Debiopharm: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria.

Abstract Introduction: Depth of response is associated with long-term outcomes in multiple myeloma (MM); however, the effect of response kinetics on outcomes in NDMM is variable and less clear. Although some studies have shown that achieving a ≥very good partial response (VGPR) at 4 months (mos) from diagnosis is associated with increased overall survival (Garderet Leukemia 2018), other reports have shown worse outcomes in pts with early vs late responses (Yan Blood Adv 2019). The double-blind, randomized TOURMALINE-MM2 (NCT01850524) trial (Facon Blood 2021) showed a clinical meaningful progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with IRd vs pbo-Rd (median 35.3 vs 21.8 mos; hazard ratio, 0.830; 95% confidence interval, 0.676-1.018; P=0.073; median follow-up, 53.3 and 55.8 mos, respectively) in NDMM pts. Safety data were consistent with the established toxicity profile of IRd. We evaluated PFS and duration of response (DOR) by depth of best confirmed response and time to best response in TOURMALINE-MM2. Methods: Pts were randomized to receive oral ixazomib 4 mg (n=351) or placebo (n=354) on days 1, 8, and 15, plus oral lenalidomide 25 mg (10 mg if creatinine clearance ≤60 mL/min) on days 1-21 and oral dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg in pts aged &gt;75 years) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in 28-day cycles. After 18 cycles, treatment was continued without dexamethasone and reduced doses of ixazomib (3 mg) and lenalidomide (10 mg) until progressive disease (PD)/toxicity. Response assessments were performed every cycle until PD, or every 4 weeks in pts who discontinued treatment prior to PD. PFS and DOR were analyzed post-hoc in subgroups defined by depth of response and in subgroups defined by time to best confirmed response; 'early' and 'late' responses were defined by time to best confirmed response of 0-4 and &gt;4 mos, respectively (additional analyses were performed by time to best confirmed response of 0-6 and &gt;6 mos). Pts in either subgroup could have recorded an initial response prior to their best response. PFS and DOR were evaluated from randomization to progression and time of initial response to progression, respectively. To address potential guarantee-time bias in the PFS analysis, and to eliminate potential bias due to transient responses in DOR analysis, sensitivity analyses were conducted in pts with PFS / DOR of ≥6 mos. Results: Among the 705 pts in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, 20% (26% IRd vs 14% placebo-Rd) had a best confirmed response of complete response (CR) or stringent CR, 35% (37 vs 34%) had VGPR, 26% (19 vs 32%) had PR, 10% (9 vs 10%) had stable disease (SD), 3% (1 vs 4%) had PD. 7% (8 vs 6%) of pts were not evaluable. In a pooled analysis of both arms, achieving a deeper response was associated with longer PFS (Figure, A) and DOR (median not reached [NR], 42.8, and 15.0 mos for pts with ≥CR, VGPR, and PR, respectively). In 570 pts with ≥PR (288 IRd; 282 pbo-Rd), 152 (53%) and 136 (47%) in the IRd arm and 143 (51%) and 139 (49%) pts in the pbo-Rd arm were defined as early (0-4 mos) and late (&gt;4 mos) responders, respectively. For early vs late responders, 46% vs 40% were aged ≥75 years, 21% vs 12% had International Staging System stage III MM, and 44% vs 33% had expanded high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. Median PFS was prolonged among late vs early responders with IRd (65.7 vs 21.2 mos) and pbo-Rd (62.6 vs 18.2 mos), as was median DOR (IRd, NR vs 22.6 mos; pbo-Rd, 64.1 vs 17.2 mos). The PFS sensitivity analysis among pts with PFS of ≥6 mos confirmed the association of late response with improved outcomes; among late vs early responders achieving ≥PR, median PFS was 65.7 vs 23.9 mos with IRd and 62.6 vs 18.4 mos with pbo-Rd (Figure, B), and among late vs early responders achieving ≥VGPR, median PFS was 65.7 vs 35.3 mos with IRd and 64.4 vs 21.7 with pbo-Rd. Conclusions: Achieving a deeper response was associated with prolonged PFS and DOR in NDMM patients in TOURMALINE-MM2. PFS benefit on the ITT analysis was driven by the higher rates of deep responses (≥VGPR) with IRd vs pbo-Rd. PFS and DOR were also longer in pts achieving a late vs early best confirmed response of ≥PR or ≥VGPR. Consistent with results from a similar analysis in relapsed/refractory MM in the TOURMALINE-MM1 trial (Garderet Leukemia 2018), our findings support the continuation of therapy with the aim of achieving a deeper response over time. Additional sensitivity analyses will be presented. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Richardson: Sanofi: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Research Funding; Protocol Intelligence: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Venner: Takeda: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria. Bahlis: GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. White: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Forus: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria. Karlin: Celgene-BMS: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board; Sanofi: Honoraria; oncopeptide: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board, travel support; Abbvie: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: travel support and advisory board ; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board. Rigaudeau: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Suzuki: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; ONO: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Abie: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Shibayama: Mundi Pharma: Honoraria; Otsuka: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Nippon Shinyaku: Honoraria; Fujimoto: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Essentia Pharma Japan: Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Eisai: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Avvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ono: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Zhang: Takeda: Current Employment. Kumar: Takeda: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Twumasi-Ankrah: Takeda: Current Employment. Labotka: Takeda: Current Employment. Rifkin: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Fresenius-Kabi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Coherus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; McKesson: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb (Celgene): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lonial: AMGEN: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria. Kumar: Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Carsgen: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; 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; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Moreau: Amgen: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene BMS: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: Use of the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who are ineligible for transplant.

Abstract The management of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has undergone unprecedented changes over the last decade. Modern targeted therapies are incorporated into clinical practice. Unfortunately, patients have begun to develop resistance or intolerance to multiple classes. Symptomatic patients previously treated with a BTK inhibitor (BTKi) and venetoclax represent a new and rapidly growing unmet need in CLL. Here, we define unmet needs in a modern treatment context. We also critically review the literature for PI3K inhibitors and chemoimmunotherapy and lack of data to support their utility following BTKis and venetoclax. Finally, we suggest opportunities to ensure the continued innovation for patients with CLL.