Citations

Key Points The ClinGen MM-VCEP has specified RUNX1-specific curation rules to address gene function, gene-specific domains, and phenotypic criteria. RUNX1-specific criteria resulted in a reduction in CONF and VUS variants by 33%, emphasizing the need for expert variant curation.

Abstract Background: It has been known for approximately 19 years that germline mutations in RUNX1, lead to familial platelet disorder with predisposition to myeloid malignancy (FPD-MM, OMIM 601399). Since that time researchers have identified a broad range of different RUNX1 mutations, in over 100 families. In large families, the diagnosis of malignancy shows variable penetrance among family members with the same mutation; some carriers of RUNX1 mutations do not develop malignancy. The causes of this heterogeneity are currently not known, complicating counselling and risk analysis for individual carriers. Recent advances in genetic sequencing technology applied by many FPD-MM research groups around the world have highlighted their value in understanding the somatic genetic changes that are associated with development of malignancies in germline RUNX1 mutation carriers. Collectively this information could lead to powerful insights essential for more precise risk assessment, monitoring, and therapeutic intervention. Specifically, a growing catalogue of somatic mutations associated with germline RUNX1 malignancy offers the opportunity for informed monitoring of asymptomatic RUNX1 carriers for additional high-risk somatic mutations, in turn providing the possibility for early therapeutic intervention to arrest the leukemic process. The challenge in advancing these goals for FPD-MM is the relative rarity of the disorder in individual populations. Global data sharing in a highly interactive FPD-MM research community offers a solution to this problem that benefits all patients world-wide. Aims: To create a global RUNX1 network through identifying and contacting researchers and clinicians with known and novel germline RUNX1 families, seeking their collaboration to share genomics data. To create a RUNX1.db portal to collectively house and analyse genomics data from germline RUNX1 carriers, with associated phenotype and clinical information, such that researchers have an ongoing means by which to combine their data with those generated by other groups around the world. Methods: RUNX1 network : Through existing collaborative networks, a systematic review of the literature, and referrals from initial contacts, we have identified a global network of researchers managing FPD-MM cases and families. RUNX1.db: We have adapted a custom-built variant analysis platform, VariantGrid, that is a visual web application and database designed to help scientists manage and analyse DNA variants that can be used to aggregate and analyse multiple datasets. Results: Preliminary analysis of aggregated data from the literature suggests there are features of germline RUNX1 syndrome that can be ascertained. These include frequent somatic mutation of RUNX1 in malignancy development, as well as mutations in genes associated with clonal hematopoiesis that may precede development of overt leukemia. This analysis also suggests that different types of germline RUNX1 mutations may be associated with different combinations of somatic mutations in the tumour. To further this analysis, we have identified over 70 groups internationally that either manage RUNX1 families or have identified potential germline carriers through genomics initiatives. This represents a large and growing resource for both scientific studies and clinical programs to benefit individuals with FPD-MM. Many of these groups have generated NGS data sets from patient samples which will be available for analysis through this portal. Further details and activities of the network, and results from the genomics aggregation database will be presented. Conclusion: We have created a global RUNX1 network, aggregated their data, and generated a RUNX1.db genomics portal for the continuous curation of genomics data from germline RUNX1 carriers. A preliminary analysis has already identified specific features of germline RUNX1 mutated malignancies that have clinical importance. Ongoing scientific and clinical studies through the RUNX1 network will enhance the power of aggregated data analysis, with RUNX1.db providing a central link, driving new insights that benefit patients. Disclosures Natsoulis: Imago BioSciences, Inc.: Consultancy, Equity Ownership. Guzman:Cellectis: Research Funding. DiNardo:Bayer: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Agios: Consultancy; Medimmune: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Borate:Novartis: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy. Wei:Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Dokal:MRC, Bloodwise, Telomerase Activator Sciences: Research Funding; The Gary Woodward Dyskeratosis Congenita Trust: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Action Medical Research, European School of Haematology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London,: Employment, Research Funding; Telomerase Activator Sciences: Research Funding; Barts and The London, Queen Mary University of London: Employment; Gary Woodward Dyskeratois Congenita Trust: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hiwase:Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Branford:Cepheid: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Qiagen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kramer:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy. Owen:Merck: Honoraria; Teva: Honoraria; AbbVie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Research Funding. Fitzgibbon:Epizyme: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy. Rienhoff:Imago BioSciences, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kurokawa:Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma: Research Funding; Nippon Sinyaku: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Honoraria, Research Funding; Eizai: Research Funding; MSD: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ono Pharmaceutical: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Otsuka Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Teijin Pharma: Research Funding; Chugai Pharmaceutical: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: IRAK4 kinase activity is required for toll-like receptor (TLR) and interleukin-1 receptor (IL-1R) signaling in a variety of myeloid and lymphoid cell types. Recruitment of IRAK4 to these receptors and its subsequent activation is facilitated by the MYD88 adaptor protein. The MYD88-L265P activating mutation is prevalent in DLBCL (~30% in ABC subtype) and WM (>90%). MYD88- L265P leads to constitutive activation of NF-κB signaling that is associated with worse prognosis. In MCL, dysregulation of B-cell receptor (BCR) and TLR pathway components correlate with constitutive NF-κB signaling. CA-4948 is a small molecule inhibitor of IRAK4 kinase that modulates the TLR and IL-1R signaling cascades. CA-4948 is being developed as a novel agent for the treatment of hematologic cancers with dysregulated IRAK4 signaling and is currently in a Ph1 trial for R/R NHL (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03328078). In preclinical studies, CA-4948 demonstrates pharmacodynamic and antitumor activity in in vitro and in vivo models with MYD88 alterations, and was previously shown to have a synergistic anti-tumor activity when combined with venetoclax in vivo. To further guide CA-4948's clinical development in NHL, we report here nonclinical studies exploring a twice-daily dosing schedule in DLBCL xenograft models. We also investigated the use of an ex-vivo whole-blood TLR-stimulation assay as a surrogate PD response biomarker. Additionally, we tested the efficacy of CA-4948 alone or in combination with the BTK inhibitor ibrutinib in DLBCL and MCL tumor models. Furthermore, preliminary PK and PD data from the first-in-human Ph1 trial are presented. Methods: Mice bearing DLBCL PDX tumors were orally administered CA-4948 twice-daily (BID) with 37.5 or 75 mg/kg doses and once-daily (QD) with 75 or 150 mg/kg doses. The ex-vivo whole blood assay involved TLR-stimulation of blood isolated at various time-points after CA-4948 administration. For the drug combination studies, mice bearing subcutaneous tumors of a MYD88-L265P DLBCL cell line or six MCL cell lines were treated. Results: (1) CA-4948 exhibited dose-dependent tumor growth inhibition in two DLBCL PDX xenograft tumor models with BID dosing showing equal or enhanced efficacy as compared to the equivalent total daily QD dose. The BID schedule was well tolerated with only a slight body weight loss as compared to the equivalent total QD dose schedule. (2) Overall, in mouse, the ex-vivo blood assay showed a time and exposure dependent relationship with the level of cytokine production after TLR-stimulation. A similar CA-4948 dose-dependent inhibition of TLR-stimulated cytokine production was observed in healthy human whole blood samples in which CA-4948 was spiked into the blood sample. Based on these findings, CA-4948 exposure levels capable of inhibiting TLR-stimulation are anticipated to be readily achievable in clinical studies. This was also supported by preliminary clinical PD data showing post treatment, on-target, reduced release of NF-κB-associated cytokines in 2 of 4 patients treated so far. (3) In xenograft efficacy studies using MCL models, single agent CA-4948 and ibrutinib exhibited anti-tumor activity and showed an additive effect when combined in the majority of the models known to have BCR-driven constitutive canonical NF-kB signaling (REC-1, MINO, and JeKo-1). Interestingly, neither CA-4948, ibrutinib, nor the combination had anti-tumor activity in Z-138 and GRANTA-591 xenograft models, consistent with these cell lines having activated NF-κB through the alternative NIK signaling pathway. (4) The human QD PK data (n=4) demonstrated that CA-4948: was rapidly absorbed, Tmax 1-3 hr, and t1/2 of 3.6 -6.8 hr. The bioavailability and exposure, as assessed by Cmax and AUC, is within the expected range compared to non-clinical PK and did not show any evidence of accumulation after QD dosing for 15 consecutive days. Conclusion: These results provide a rationale for CA-4948 BID dosing and incorporating the use of an ex-vivo whole-blood TLR-stimulation assay as a surrogate PD response biomarker, the former of which will be evaluated in the current Ph1 dose escalation soon and the latter of which is currently being implemented in the Ph1 trial for patients with advanced NHL. The murine xenograft results further support exploration of CA-4948 as monotherapy and in combination with canonical and alternative NF-κB pathway-targeted agents in DLBCL and MCL. Disclosures Booher: Curis, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Patel:Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Lunning:Celgene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Genzyme: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy. Samson:Curis, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Atoyan:Curis, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ma:Curis, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Xu:Curis, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Dellarocca:Curis, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Modafferi:Curis, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Borek:Curis, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhang:Curis, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Parker:Curis, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Whitney:Curis, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wang:Curis, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Tuck:Curis, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Younes:Merck: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; J&J: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: AITL is a distinct clinicopathologic entity among the mature T-cell and NK-cell lymphomas, accounting for approximately 1-2% of all non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Although autologous HCT (auto-HCT) provides high response rates, there is a high relapse risk associated with this procedure. Allo-HCT may result in a lower risk of relapse in part due to a graft-versus-lymphoma effect mediated by alloreactive donor cells. The role of allo-HCT in AITL with advanced disease (prior auto-HCT failure, or chemorefractory state) is not well described. Using the CIBMTR registry, we report here the outcomes of AITL patients undergoing an allo-HCT. Methods: We evaluated 249 adult (≥18years) patients with AITL who received a first allo-HCT during 2000-2016. Patients receiving mismatched unrelated donor, cord blood or haploidentical donor transplantation were excluded due to small numbers. The primary end-point was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included cumulative incidence of acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), chronic GVHD, non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse/progression (R/P) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Baseline patient characteristics are summarized in Table. The median patient age was 56 years (range=21-77 years). The graft source was mainly peripheral blood. Median follow-up of survivors was 49 months (range=4-170 months). The cumulative incidence of grade 2-4 and grade 3-4 acute GVHD at day 180 were 36% (95% CI=30-42)% and 12 (95% CI=8-17)%, respectively. The cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD at 2 years was 58% (95% CI=51-64)%. The 1-year NRM was 19% (95% CI=14-24)%, while the 4-year R/P, PFS, and OS were 21% (95% CI=16-27)%, 49% (95% CI=42-56)% and 56% (95% CI=49-63)%, respectively [Figure]. On multivariate analysis, chemoresistant status at allo-HCT was associated with a significantly higher risk for progression (RR=1.73 95% CI=1.08-2.77), while KPS <90% was associated with a significantly higher risk of mortality (RR=3.46 95% CI=1.75 - 6.87). Subgroup analysis looking at the effect of prior auto-HCT (no prior auto-HCT vs prior auto-HCT), the 4-year PFS (50% vs 47%, p=0.60) and OS (57% vs 54%, p=0.70) were not significantly different. Similarly, on comparing the disease status at allo-HCT (CR1 vs CR>1 vs PR vs refractory), there was no significant difference in the 4-year PFS (58% vs 45% vs 47% vs 38%, p=0.41) or OS (70% vs 54% vs 50% vs 52%, p=0.27). The 1-year NRM was 24%, while the 4-year R/P, PFS, and OS in patients with refractory AITL were 32%, 38%, and 52%, respectively. The most common cause of death was organ failure. Conclusion: In this largest series of mostly advanced AITL patients, allo-HCT was shown to provide durable disease control (4-year PFS=47%) with a clear plateau in relapse at 1-year post-transplantation. Allo-HCT provided durable disease control even in patients with a failed prior auto-HCT and those subjects with refractory disease at the time of allografting. Disclosures Kharfan-Dabaja: Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Incyte Corp: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau. Smith:BMS: Consultancy; Portola: Honoraria. Sureda:Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hamadani:Merck: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ostuka: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; MedImmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Cellerant: Consultancy.

Abstract The prognosis of elderly patients (pts) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) remains poor, and novel therapeutic approaches are clearly needed. CD19 is expressed on the majority of precursor-B ALLs and represents an attractive therapeutic target. The anti-CD19 bi-specific engager antibody blinatumomab has demonstrated significant activity in both relapsed/refractory ALL and minimal residual disease (MRD) positive ALL. Therefore, we evaluated blinatumomab as a single agent in the upfront treatment of newly diagnosed elderly pts with Philadelphia chromosome (Ph) negative B-lineage ALL to determine response rates and overall survival (OS). Methods: Pts were treated at National Clinical Trial Network sites from June 2015 to September 2017. The primary objective of the study was to estimate 3-year OS. An IND was approved by the FDA and the protocol was approved by a central institutional review board. Eligibility: age > 65 years, newly diagnosed Ph negative B-lineage ALL with adequate organ function and no evidence of central nervous system (CNS) disease. Pts received blinatumomab for induction at standard dosing for 1-2 cycles until attainment of complete response (CR) or CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi) (defined below). Pts then received 3 cycles of blinatumomab post-remission therapy followed by 18 months of maintenance POMP (prednisone, vincristine, 6-mercaptopurine, methotrexate). A total of 8 doses of intrathecal methotrexate were administered as CNS prophylaxis. Cytogenetic risk was ascribed by NCCN 2018 criteria and bone marrow samples were analyzed for the presence of the Ph-like signature. MRD was assessed centrally by 8 color flow cytometry pre-treatment, on Day 35 of induction cycle 1, and on Day 35 of re-induction (if applicable). Response was assessed at the completion of 1-2 cycles of blinatumomab. CR was defined as < 5% marrow blasts with no evidence of extramedullary disease and recovery of counts [absolute neutrophil count (ANC) > 1000/uL, platelets >100,000/uL]. CRi was defined the same as CR but ANC < 1000/ uL and/ or platelets ≤ 100,000/ uL. OS was measured from day of registration on trial until the date of death. Disease-free survival (DFS) was measured from the date the pt achieved CR/ CRi until relapse or death. Toxicities were graded according to NCI CTCAE version 4.0. Results: Of 31 pts enrolled, 29 were eligible. The median age was 75 years (range 66 - 84), 22 (76%) were male, median baseline white blood count was 3.7 x 103/uL (range 0.3 - 7,100), and median bone marrow blast count percentage was 86.5% (range 30-100). Three pts received hydroxyurea or steroids prior to treatment initiation. Cytogenetic risk at diagnosis was: poor (34% of pts; n=10), standard (55% of pts; n=16), good (3% of pts; n=1) and unknown (7% of pts, n=2). Testing for the Ph-like signature is being completed. The most common Grade 3-5 non-hematologic toxicities related to treatment during induction were hyperglycemia (14%), dyspnea (10%), febrile neutropenia (10%), hypertension (10%), and lung infection (7%). One pt developed Grade 3 cytokine release syndrome and 1 developed Grade 3 neurotoxicity. No pts died during the first 28 days of treatment. The overall response rate (CR + CRi) was 66% (all CRs). Thirteen of the 19 responders have available MRD data post-treatment. Of these, 12 pts (92%) achieved MRD negativity, all at Cycle 1 Day 35. One pt required 2 cycles of blinatumomab to achieve CR. One pt proceeded to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. The median follow-up time is 1 year and median duration on trial is 170 days (6 pts are still on maintenance therapy). OS estimated by Kaplan Meier at 6 months is 79% (95% CI 58%-90%) and at 1 year is 65% (95% CI 43%-80%). DFS estimated at 6 months is 68% (95% CI 43%-84%) and at 1 year is 56% (95% CI 31%-75%). No baseline features including CD19 expression (by percentage or mean-fluorescent intensity) or presence of a CD19 negative subpopulation were associated with response. Conclusions: Blinatumomab was well tolerated and effective in the treatment of newly diagnosed elderly patients with Ph negative B-lineage ALL. Further follow up will determine the durability of these responses. Disclosures Advani: Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy. Wieduwilt:Leadiant: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; Reata Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding. Park:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Consultancy. Stock:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Erba:Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Astellas: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Astellas: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Juno: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Background: The phase 3 ECHELON-1 study assessed frontline brentuximab vedotin administered with doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) vs doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) in patients (pts) with advanced cHL (NCT01712490). The primary endpoint of ECHELON-1, modified PFS (mPFS) per independent review facility (IRF), is defined as (1) progressive disease, (2) death, or (3) subsequent anticancer therapy (chemotherapy [chemo] and/or radiotherapy [RT]) following detection of a non-complete response (non-CR = Deauville score 3-5) at end of frontline therapy. A+AVD was superior to ABVD (hazard ratio [HR]=0.77; p=0.035) with 2-year mPFS rates of 82.1% and 77.2%; as previously reported. In pts with newly diagnosed cHL, the aim of frontline therapy is curative. Pts who do not achieve a satisfactory response to frontline therapy may initiate subsequent anticancer therapy prior to response criteria-defined progression. The measurement of traditional PFS becomes confounded, as pts may effectively be rescued from criteria-defined progression by subsequent treatment, resulting in an overestimation of PFS with frontline therapy (Connors et al. Haematologica 2016;101[s5]:22-3[P007]). To further evaluate modified and traditional PFS in the ECHELON-1 study, two sensitivity analyses were conducted. Methods: 1334 pts with Stage III (36%) or IV (64%) cHL were randomized 1:1 to receive A+AVD (n=664) or ABVD (n=670) on days 1 and 15, for up to six 28-day cycles. In addition to mPFS per IRF, mPFS per investigator (INV) was collected. A sensitivity analysis (mPFS-chemo) was performed in which RT following a non-CR at the completion of frontline therapy was not counted as an event: in this case, mPFS-chemo was defined as (1) progression, (2) death, or (3) receipt of additional anticancer chemo excluding RT for pts who are not in CR after completion of frontline therapy. A second sensitivity analysis of traditional PFS (PFS-traditional), defined as (1) progression or (2) death, was also performed. All analyses were performed per INV as, per protocol, IRF follow up of pts was not conducted after the initiation of subsequent therapy. Results: At 2 years, the rates of mPFS per INV (95% CI) for A+AVD vs ABVD were 81.0% (77.6-83.9%) vs 74.4% (70.7-77.7%), respectively; HR=0.72 (95% CI: 0.573, 0.914; p=0.006). Concordance between IRF and INV mPFS assessments was high among all pts in both arms, at 91%. A total of 123 mPFS events per INV were observed among pts treated with A+AVD, including 73 pts with PD, 15 deaths, and 35 who received additional anticancer therapy following evidence of non-CR at the end of frontline therapy, vs 164 per INV mPFS events among pts treated with ABVD, of which 103 were PD, 22 were deaths, and 39 were additional anticancer therapy following evidence of non-CR at the end of frontline therapy. Of the 35 (A+AVD) and 39 (ABVD) additional anticancer therapy events, chemo/RT following evidence of non-CR at the end of frontline therapy accounted for 11/24 and 17/22 of these events, respectively. For mPFS-chemo, a larger benefit in favor of A+AVD vs ABVD, with a HR=0.687 (95% CI: 0.534, 0.885; p=0.003), was observed. The 2-year mPFS-chemo (95% CI) was estimated as 84.0% (80.9-86.7%) for pts treated with A+AVD vs 77.3% (73.7-80.4%) for pts treated with ABVD. A total of 103 events were observed among pts in the A+AVD arm, including 78 pts with PD, 15 deaths, and 10 who received additional chemo following evidence of a non-CR at the end of frontline therapy, vs 145 events among pts treated with ABVD, of which 106 were PD, 22 were deaths, and 17 were additional chemo following evidence of non-CR at the end of frontline therapy. For PFS-traditional, an advantage in favor of A+AVD vs ABVD was also observed: HR=0.70 (95% CI: 0.54-0.91; p=0.006). The 2-year PFS estimate (95% CI) was 84.2% (81.1-86.9%) for A+AVD vs 78.0% (74.4-81.1%) for ABVD. In total, there were 101 PFS events in the A+AVD arm, including 86 pts with PD and 15 deaths; vs 140 PFS events in the ABVD arm, including 118 pts with PD and 22 deaths. Conclusions: Consistent with the primary outcome of ECHELON-1, a benefit in favor of A+AVD vs ABVD was observed independent of the inclusion of additional anticancer RT or chemo as survival events, in addition to progression or death. A traditional PFS assessment including only progression or death events demonstrated that A+AVD resulted in a 30% reduction in the risk of progression or death compared to ABVD. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Connors: Lilly: Research Funding; Bayer Healthcare: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; NanoString Technologies: Patents & Royalties: Named Inventor on a patent licensed to NanoString Technologies, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche Canada: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; F Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Younes:J&J: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Curis: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria. Gallamini:Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Ansell:Pfizer: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Kim:J&J: Research Funding; Kyowa-Kirin: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Celltrion: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Eisai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Advani:Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cell Medica: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Forty Seven Inc.: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Merck: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Celgene: Research Funding; Autolus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Millenium: Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board. Bartlett:KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; ImaginAB: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Straus:Onco Tracker: Consultancy; Roch China: Speakers Bureau; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Employment; JUNO: Consultancy; Medical Crossfire: Speakers Bureau; DAVA Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy; InPractice Elselvier: Consultancy; Millenium (Takeda): Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Sureda:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hutchings:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dlugosz-Danecka:Servier: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Engley:Seattle Genetics: Employment. Fenton:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Liu:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Miao:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Jolin:Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Employment. Gautam:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Radford:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Equity Ownership; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Equity Ownership; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract In individuals with the plasma cell malignancy multiple myeloma, there is evidence that bone formation rates are reduced and that increased ostoeclastic bone resorption is associated with impaired osteoblast function. We investigated the osteogenic differentiation capacity of myeloma bone marrow mesenchymal progenitor cells (MPCs). We also examined the expression levels and activity of Runx2, the transcription factor required for osteogenesis. Bone marrow MPCs were cultured in osteogenic induction medium and assessed for bone alkaline phosphatase (bALP) expression (Sigma kit), induction of osteoblast specific genes like osteocalcin (RT-PCR) and mineralization by von Kossa staining. Immunoblot analysis and electrophoretic mobility shift assays (EMSA) were used to determine Runx2 expression and DNA-binding activity respectively. RT-PCR was used to sequence Runx2 and detect any mutations or deletions present within its domains. Transactivation ability of Runx2 was measured by its ability to activate osteocalcin promoter in transient transfection assays. Myeloma -derived MPCs showed reduced levels of bALP and osteocalcin transcript and a lower degree of mineralization, in osteogenic induction medium, as compared to that of the healthy donors. Immunoblot analysis and EMSA indicated equivalent Runx2 expression and DNA-binding capacity, respectively, in both healthy donor and myeloma-derived MPCs. Sequence analysis of Runx2 indentified a splice variant of Runx2 lacking exon 8 (Runx2D8) in myeloma patients with reduced transactivation ability. Co-transfection of the splice variant led to reduced transcriptional activity of the full-length Runx2. The reduced transactivation ability of spliced Runx2, as well as its suppressive action on the transactivation function of full-length Runx2, likely contributes to the defective osteogenesis clinically observed in myeloma pateints.

Abstract Abstract 1409 MYC is among the most prolific oncogenes in cancer, yet pharmacologic strategies to modulate the function of the c-Myc oncoprotein do not exist. Toward this objective, we have undertaken to target c-Myc transcription by interfering with chromatin-dependent signal transduction to RNA polymerase, specifically by inhibiting the acetyl-lysine recognition domains (bromodomains) of putative co-activator proteins implicated in transcriptional initiation and elongation. Using a selective small-molecule bromodomain inhibitor, JQ1, we identify BET bromodomain-containing proteins as transcriptional regulatory factors for c-Myc. BET inhibition with JQ1 rapidly downregulates c-Myc transcription, followed by depletion of chromatin-bound c-Myc and genome-wide downregulation of Myc-dependent target genes. In translational model systems of multiple myeloma and Burkitt's lymphoma, both canonical MYC -dependent hematologic malignancies, JQ1 treatment produces a potent antiproliferative effect associated with cell cycle arrest. In multiple myeloma, adhesion to bone marrow stroma is associated with upregulation of BRD4, a BET bromomdomain coactivator protein. Inhibition of Myc function with JQ1 leads to impaired adhesion to stroma and cellular senescence, a classical Myc-specific phenotype. Mechanistically, JQ1 treatment depletes BRD4 from IgH enhancers, leading to prompt and robust downregulation of MYC transcription. In vivo efficacy of JQ1 in two disseminated models of multiple myeloma and in a Burkitt's lymphoma human xenograft establishes the therapeutic rationale for BET bromodomain inhibition in these diseases. Together, these studies identify a mechanistic rationale for targeting c-Myc in human cancer, and potentially other undruggable oncogenes driven by immunoglobulin rearrangement. Note: G.C.I. and J.E.D. have made equal contributions to this research; C.S.M. and J.E.B. are jointly senior authors Disclosures: Richardson: Millennium: Advisory Board; Celgene: Advisory Board; Johnson & Johnson: Advisory Board; Novartis: Advisory Board; Bristol Myers Squibb: Advisory Board. Ghobrial:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Noxxon:; Millennium:; Celgene:; Novartis:. Anderson:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kung:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Mitsiades:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kosan: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmion: Consultancy, Honoraria; Centocor: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amnis Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; PharmaMar:; OSI Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; AVEO Pharma: Research Funding; EMD Serono: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Gloucester Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding. Bradner:Acetylon Pharmaceuticals: Scientific Founder; SHAPE Pharmaceuticals: Scientific Founder; Tensha Therapeutics: Scientific Founder.

Abstract A device that would provide a rapid evaluation of hemostasis would greatly aid physicians in making scientific decisions regarding transfusion therapy; especially with perioperative bleeding. We performed a prospective in-vitro study with reconstituted, recalcified whole blood (n = 6) separated into samples containing specific deficiencies in platelets, plasma, lyophilized platelets and lyophilized plasma such that the concentrations of the specific platelet or plasma were 0%, 10%, 30%, 50%, and 100%. The whole blood was obtained from consenting healthy volunteers. Samples from the various concentrations of the reconstituted blood were subjected to the following point of care coagulation tests: activated clotting time (ACT), thromboelastogram (TEG), laboratory prothrombin time (PT), laboratory activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) and Signature+ PT. ACT’s were performed for each of four celite doses (1.5 mg, 3.0 mg, 6.0 mg and 12 mg celite). The four dose celite ACT’s were performed in duplicate and the mean recorded. The TEG was performed in duplicate, and the mean was recorded. The signature+ PT was performed in duplicate, and the mean recorded. The laboratory PT, aPTT, Platelet Count and Fibrinogen were performed once each. ACT values were analyzed within each of the three preparations using analysis of variance. This assessed the strength of the relationship between blood constituent concentration and ACT, and determined whether this relationship differed across varying amounts of celite. Other coagulation parameters including TEG (mA), PT and APTT were analyzed using analysis of variance with a single term for blood constituent concentration. This model determined the strength of the relationship between these coagulation parameters and blood constituent concentration. In addition, the kaolin activated TEG and the signature+ PT was evaluated to determine the strength of the relationship between these tests and the variations in platelet and plasma concentrations. There was a significant correlation between the plasma, platelets and lyophilized plasma concentrations and ACT results (all p < 0.001). There was a significant correlation between plasma platelets and lyophilized plasma and the TEG MA and angle (all p < 0.028). There was a significant correlation between laboratory PT and APTT and plasma, platelets, and lyophilized plasma, lyophilized platelets (all p < 0.001). There was a significant correlation between the Signature+ PT and plasma, lyophilized platelets, and lypholized plasma and platelets (all p < 0.005), (figure 1). A better point of care coagulation device that is based on in-vitro additions of various therapies, and comparison of their effects on coagulation tests may provide better treatment of the bleeding patient. The Signature+ PT could provide the endpoint for such a device whereas the ACT was nonspecific and had a small change in results with large changes in plasma concentration. The additional benefit of lypholized plasma to behave similarly to human plasma may allow such a device to be built. Figure Figure