Citations

SummaryObjectivesAlthough secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) has been reported in children with critical illness of various etiologies, it has not been reported in patients with febrile infection–related epilepsy syndrome (FIRES). We describe a series of patients with concurrent HLH and FIRES in an effort to establish common pathophysiologic abnormalities.MethodsFive patients with FIRES who were assessed for HLH were identified from a neurocritical care database. All were previously healthy and had extensive diagnostic testing. All had clinical deterioration with multiorgan dysfunction prompting HLH screening 20‐29 days after hospitalization. Markers for inflammatory dysregulation were assessed in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and serum at various time points. Outcomes were assessed 6 months after presentation.ResultsThree patients met clinical criteria for secondary HLH. Elevation of specific cytokines/chemokines was variable. CSF neopterin, high mobility group box 1 (HMGB1), and C‐X‐C motif chemokine ligand 8 (CXCL8) were significantly elevated in all. Interleukin‐1β (IL‐1β) and IL‐18 were not elevated in any of the samples. Treatment and outcomes were variable.SignificanceWe describe 3 patients with HLH and FIRES. The co‐occurrence of these 2 rare disorders suggests the possibility of a common immune dysregulation phenotype prolonging epileptogenesis. HLH screening in critically ill patients with FIRES may yield a broader understanding of shared inflammatory processes.

Abstract Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable malignancy of plasma cells. It is the second most common hematologic cancer, affecting nearly 30,000 people in the United States annually. Substantial progress has been made in the past fifteen years in the treatment of MM due to the approval of several new classes of drugs. However, patients inevitably relapse and become refractory to existing therapies. Hence, there is an immediate unmet need to develop novel therapies for MM based on a better understanding of the disease biology. Mutations in RAS have been found to occur in about 40% of newly diagnosed MM patients, with the frequency increasing to around 70% in relapsed/refractory patients. Such mutations are absent in patients with the premalignant conditions monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM). Clearly, RAS mutations contribute to both disease progression and relapse. However, targeting the MEK/ERK pathway has been unsuccessful in MM patients to date. Given the high frequency of RAS mutations in MM, we hypothesized that targeting this pathway could still be a promising strategy when combined with existing agents that have multifaceted mechanisms to promote tumor cell death, such as the recently approved histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor LBH589 (panobinostat). Our results clearly demonstrate that low doses of LBH589 in combination with the MEK inhibitor AZD6244 induce BIM-dependent synergistic cell death in several MM cell lines and patient cells. Our studies also suggest that mutations in RAS/RAF could serve as a predictive biomarker for sensitivity to AZD6244/LBH589. RAS/RAF mutations appear to confer Mcl-1 dependence in MM cells, in part by driving up the phosphorylation of Mcl-1. The AZD6244/LBH589 combination is able to decrease the phosphorylation of Mcl-1 at several sites, which dissociates BIM-Mcl-1 complexes, ultimately leading to activation of the intrinsic apoptosis pathway. Additionally, we identified that wild-type RAS/RAF cells have relatively lower levels of phospho-Mcl-1, as well as higher levels of Bcl-2 and phospho-Bcl-2 when compared to mutated RAS/RAF cells. This seems to confer functional Bcl-2 dependence. Consequently, we found that wild-type RAS/RAF cells are sensitive to the BH3-mimetic ABT199 (venetoclax) when combined with LBH589. Through ongoing experiments, we hope to further confirm the mechanism of action of both these combinations, identify the particular HDAC that is required to be inhibited for the observed synergy, and validate RAS/RAF mutational status as a biomarker for predicting sensitivity to either combination. Our findings have broad therapeutic potential given the prevalence of RAS mutations in MM. Moreover, the ABT199/LBH589 combination could emerge as a targeted therapy for wild-type RAS patients, perhaps broadening the scope and capacity of Bcl-2 inhibition in MM. Citation Format: Kevin C. Miller, Jessica Haug, Teresa Kimlinger, Sanjay Kumar, Wilson Gonsalves, S. Vincent Rajkumar, Shaji K. Kumar, Vijay Ramakrishnan. HDAC inhibition in combination with MEK or BCL-2 inhibition as novel therapeutic strategies in multiple myeloma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 3909.

Abstract Background: HRAS is a proto-oncogene that is mutated in head and neck, bladder, thyroid, and salivary gland tumors, among others. While discovered over 40 years ago, no specific therapies have yet been developed targeting mutant HRAS. Tipifarnib is a potent and highly selective inhibitor of farnesyltransferase, a critical enzyme requisite for HRAS activation. Over 5,000 patients (pts) have been treated with tipifarnib; although responses have been documented in several tumor indications, the mechanisms of response are still poorly understood. Tipifarnib has demonstrated robust activity in HRAS mutant patient derived xenograft (PDX) models of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) and squamous non-small cell lung cancer that are resistant to standard therapies. This Phase 2 study (NCT02383927) was conducted to test the hypothesis that inhibition of mutant HRAS oncogenic activity with tipifarnib could translate to objective responses in HNSCC pts driven by the HRAS oncogene. Methods: The study was originally designed to enroll pts into 2 single-arm study cohorts: Cohort 1 (thyroid cancer) and Cohort 2 (other solid tumors), each one with a 2-stage design (11+7 evaluable pts) to determine overall response rate (ORR) as the primary objective. This design has 80% power to detect a difference between 10% and 30% ORR at one-sided significance level of 0.087. Two objective responses were needed to be observed in the first stage for each cohort to proceed to stage 2. The study is considered positive if at least 4 responses are observed in one of the 2 cohorts (N=18 each, stages 1 and 2 combined). The prespecified activity goal for the first stage of accrual in Cohort 2 was met and based on data observed in the first stage of this Cohort, ongoing enrollment to the second stage of Cohort 2 was limited to HRAS mutant HNSCC. For enrollment, pts must have an HRAS mutant, locally advanced/unresectable and/or metastatic solid tumor malignancy and RECIST v1.1 measurable disease. Tipifarnib is given at 900 mg orally twice daily on days 1-7 and 15-21 of 28-day cycles. Response assessments are conducted every 8 weeks. Results: As of August 30, 2017, 28 pts have been enrolled. Tipifarnib was generally well tolerated with myelosuppression, gastrointestinal disturbances (nausea, vomiting and diarrhea) and fatigue constituting the most common adverse events (≥30% of pts, all grades). Twenty four pts are currently evaluable for efficacy: 10 in Cohort 1 and 14 in Cohort 2. Stage 1 enrollment continues in Cohort 1. The primary objective was met for Cohort 2 prior to completing full enrollment, with 4 confirmed responses observed out of 14 evaluable pts. Notably, of the 6 pts in Cohort 2 with HNSCC currently evaluable for efficacy, 4 (67%) achieved a confirmed partial response. Three of these pts remain on treatment in cycles 3, 5, and 19, and one subject discontinued at Cycle 21. Two (33%) pts had disease stabilization as best response (4 cycles, ongoing and 7 cycles). Importantly, 4 of these pts were refractory to prior therapies, including regimens containing immunotherapy (pembrolizumab, nivolumab) or cetuximab +/- chemotherapy. None of the 6 HNSCC patients experienced an objective partial response on their last prior therapy. Conclusions: These data suggest that HRAS mutant HNSCC pts may be refractory to standard therapies but can derive prolonged clinical benefit from tipifarnib treatment. Based on the encouraging activity of tipifarnib in pts with HNSCC with HRAS mutations, enrollment continues in this cohort. Citation Format: Alan Ho, Nicole Chau, Deborah J. Wong, Maria E. Cabanillas, Jessica Bauman, Marcia S. Brose, Keith Bible, Valentina Boni, Irene Brana, Charles Ferte, Caroline Even, Francis Burrows, Linda Kessler, Vishnu Mishra, Kelly Magnuson, Catherine Scholz, Antonio Gualberto. Preliminary results from a phase 2 proof of concept trial of tipifarnib in tumors with HRAS mutations [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference: Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2017 Oct 26-30; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2018;17(1 Suppl):Abstract nr LB-A10.

AbstractBackgroundAlthough the prognosis of core‐binding factor (CBF) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is better than other subtypes of AML, 30% of patients still relapse and may require allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT). However, there is no validated widely accepted scoring system to predict patient subsets with higher risk of relapse.MethodsEleven centers in the US and Europe evaluated 247 patients with t(8;21)(q22;q22).ResultsComplete remission (CR) rate was high (92.7%), yet relapse occurred in 27.1% of patients. A total of 24.7% of patients received alloHCT. The median disease‐free (DFS) and overall (OS) survival were 20.8 and 31.2 months, respectively. Age, KIT D816V mutated (11.3%) or nontested (36.4%) compared with KIT D816V wild type (52.5%), high white blood cell counts (WBC), and pseudodiploidy compared with hyper‐ or hypodiploidy were included in a scoring system (named I‐CBFit). DFS rate at 2 years was 76% for patients with a low‐risk I‐CBFit score compared with 36% for those with a high‐risk I‐CBFit score (P < 0.0001). Low‐ vs high‐risk OS at 2 years was 89% vs 51% (P < 0.0001).ConclusionsI‐CBFit composed of readily available risk factors can be useful to tailor the therapy of patients, especially for whom alloHCT is not need in CR1 (ie, patients with a low‐risk I‐CBFit score).