Citations

Abstract Purpose To provide guidance to clinicians regarding therapy for patients with brain metastases from solid tumors. Methods ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature. Results Thirty-two randomized trials published in 2008 or later met eligibility criteria and form the primary evidentiary base. Recommendations Surgery is a reasonable option for patients with brain metastases. Patients with large tumors with mass effect are more likely to benefit than those with multiple brain metastases and/or uncontrolled systemic disease. Patients with symptomatic brain metastases should receive local therapy regardless of the systemic therapy used. For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases, local therapy should not be deferred unless deferral is specifically recommended in this guideline. The decision to defer local therapy should be based on a multidisciplinary discussion of the potential benefits and harms that the patient may experience. Several regimens were recommended for non–small-cell lung cancer, breast cancer, and melanoma. For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases and no systemic therapy options, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone should be offered to patients with one to four unresected brain metastases, excluding small-cell lung carcinoma. SRS alone to the surgical cavity should be offered to patients with one to two resected brain metastases. SRS, whole brain radiation therapy, or their combination are reasonable options for other patients. Memantine and hippocampal avoidance should be offered to patients who receive whole brain radiation therapy and have no hippocampal lesions and 4 months or more expected survival. Patients with asymptomatic brain metastases with either Karnofsky Performance Status ≤ 50 or Karnofsky Performance Status < 70 with no systemic therapy options do not derive benefit from radiation therapy. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines.

PURPOSE To provide guidance to clinicians regarding therapy for patients with brain metastases from solid tumors. METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS Thirty-two randomized trials published in 2008 or later met eligibility criteria and form the primary evidentiary base. RECOMMENDATIONS Surgery is a reasonable option for patients with brain metastases. Patients with large tumors with mass effect are more likely to benefit than those with multiple brain metastases and/or uncontrolled systemic disease. Patients with symptomatic brain metastases should receive local therapy regardless of the systemic therapy used. For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases, local therapy should not be deferred unless deferral is specifically recommended in this guideline. The decision to defer local therapy should be based on a multidisciplinary discussion of the potential benefits and harms that the patient may experience. Several regimens were recommended for non–small-cell lung cancer, breast cancer, and melanoma. For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases and no systemic therapy options, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone should be offered to patients with one to four unresected brain metastases, excluding small-cell lung carcinoma. SRS alone to the surgical cavity should be offered to patients with one to two resected brain metastases. SRS, whole brain radiation therapy, or their combination are reasonable options for other patients. Memantine and hippocampal avoidance should be offered to patients who receive whole brain radiation therapy and have no hippocampal lesions and 4 months or more expected survival. Patients with asymptomatic brain metastases with either Karnofsky Performance Status ≤ 50 or Karnofsky Performance Status < 70 with no systemic therapy options do not derive benefit from radiation therapy. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines .

OBJECTIVE The goal of this study was to assess the social determinants that influence access and outcomes for pediatric neurosurgical care for patients with Chiari malformation type I (CM-I) and syringomyelia (SM). METHODS The authors used retro- and prospective components of the Park-Reeves Syringomyelia Research Consortium database to identify pediatric patients with CM-I and SM who received surgical treatment and had at least 1 year of follow-up data. Race, ethnicity, and insurance status were used as comparators for preoperative, treatment, and postoperative characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS A total of 637 patients met inclusion criteria, and race or ethnicity data were available for 603 (94.7%) patients. A total of 463 (76.8%) were non-Hispanic White (NHW) and 140 (23.2%) were non-White. The non-White patients were older at diagnosis (p = 0.002) and were more likely to have an individualized education plan (p < 0.01). More non-White than NHW patients presented with cerebellar and cranial nerve deficits (i.e., gait ataxia [p = 0.028], nystagmus [p = 0.002], dysconjugate gaze [p = 0.03], hearing loss [p = 0.003], gait instability [p = 0.003], tremor [p = 0.021], or dysmetria [p < 0.001]). Non-White patients had higher rates of skull malformation (p = 0.004), platybasia (p = 0.002), and basilar invagination (p = 0.036). Non-White patients were more likely to be treated at low-volume centers than at high-volume centers (38.7% vs 15.2%; p < 0.01). Non-White patients were older at the time of surgery (p = 0.001) and had longer operative times (p < 0.001), higher estimated blood loss (p < 0.001), and a longer hospital stay (p = 0.04). There were no major group differences in terms of treatments performed or complications. The majority of subjects used private insurance (440, 71.5%), whereas 175 (28.5%) were using Medicaid or self-pay. Private insurance was used in 42.2% of non-White patients compared to 79.8% of NHW patients (p < 0.01). There were no major differences in presentation, treatment, or outcome between insurance groups. In multivariate modeling, non-White patients were more likely to present at an older age after controlling for sex and insurance status (p < 0.01). Non-White and male patients had a longer duration of symptoms before reaching diagnosis (p = 0.033 and 0.004, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Socioeconomic and demographic factors appear to influence the presentation and management of patients with CM-I and SM. Race is associated with age and timing of diagnosis as well as operating room time, estimated blood loss, and length of hospital stay. This exploration of socioeconomic and demographic barriers to care will be useful in understanding how to improve access to pediatric neurosurgical care for patients with CM-I and SM.

Abstract Introduction: Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) have revolutionized the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) and certain B-cell neoplasms. However, resistance to BTKi develops primarily through mutations at the cysteine binding site (C481) or PLCγ2 mutations. MK-1026 (formerly ARQ-531) is a non-covalent, potent inhibitor of both wild type and C481- mutated BTK. In the phase 1/2 dose escalation and dose expansion study NCT03162536, the preliminary recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of MK-1026 was determined to be 65 mg once daily. The efficacy and safety of MK-1026 in participants with CLL/SLL and B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) were also evaluated at a higher dose during the dose expansion phase. Methods: In this open-label, single-arm phase 2 study, 9 expansion cohorts were initiated following determination of preliminary MK-1026 RP2D. Approximately 10-25 eligible participants were enrolled into Cohort A (relapsed/refractory (r/r) CLL/SLL, with ≥2 prior therapies including covalent BTKi, with documented C481 mutation), Cohort B (r/r CLL/SLL progressed on/intolerant to a BTKi, with ≥2 prior therapies without C481 mutation), Cohort C (participants with Richter transformation [RT] with ≥1 prior therapy), Cohort D-H (participants with follicular lymphoma (FL), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), high-grade B cell lymphoma (BCL) with known MYC, BCL-2 or BCL-6 translocations, and Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM), respectively, who received ≥2 prior therapies), Cohort I (food effect cohort including participants with B-cell NHL, CLL/SLL, and WM). Treatment continued until unacceptable toxicity, clinical or radiological progression, participant/physician withdrawal. Primary endpoint was overall response rate (per iwCLL criteria, by investigator) for participants with CLL/SLL. Secondary endpoints included duration of response and safety and tolerability. The data cut-off date for this analysis was April 7, 2021. Results: Among 118 participants enrolled, 44 had B-cell NHL (including 6 with DLBCL, 11 with FL, 3 with high-grade BCL, 6 with MCL, 2 with MZL, 16 with RT), 68 CLL/SLL, and 4 WM. Of these, 94 (79.6%) were treated at the preliminary RP2D, including 51 (54.3%) participants with CLL/SLL. Participants with CLL/SLL had a median (range) number of prior therapies of 4 (1-18), 43 (84%) had prior BTKi therapy, 12 (23%) had del17p, 26 (51%) had IGHV unmutated status, and 32 (63%) had C481S BTK mutation. At data cut-off, median (range) follow-up was 4.56 months (0.1-26.7) for all treated participants. ORR was 57.9% (N = 22 of 38; 1 CR, 21 PR/PRL) per iwCLL criteria in the efficacy evaluable population of participants with CLL/SLL treated at preliminary RP2D. The median duration of response in these participants was not estimable [NE] (range, 8.3 months-NE). At data cut-off, the median duration of treatment exposure was 3.2 months (range, 0-35.9). Among all treated participants, 114 (97%) had a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), with 78 (66%) having a drug-related TEAE, and 9 (8%) having a drug-related TEAE that led to discontinuation. Common TEAEs (≥ 20%) included fatigue (33%), constipation (31%), dysgeusia (28%), cough (25%), nausea (25%), pyrexia (25%), dizziness (23%), hypertension (23%), peripheral edema (22%), arthralgia (20%), and diarrhea (21%). Grade ≥3 TEAEs occurred in 80 (68%) participants. Grade 5 TEAEs occurred in 7 (6%) participants and included death following disease progression in 3 (3%), sepsis 1 (1%), dyspnea 1 (1%), and respiratory failure 2 (2%) participants. Common drug-related TEAEs (≥10%) included dysgeusia (15%), nausea (11%), fatigue (11%), and decreased neutrophil count (10%). Grade 3-4 drug-related TEAEs occurred in 31 (26%) participants. No drug-related TEAEs led to death. Conclusion: MK-1026 has promising antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile in participants with CLL/SLL exposed to multiple lines of therapy, including in those who had progression of disease on prior covalent BTKi. Further evaluation of MK-1026 in B-cell malignancies is ongoing. Disclosures Woyach: AbbVie Inc, ArQule Inc, Janssen Biotech Inc, AstraZeneca, Beigene: Other: Advisory Committee; AbbVie Inc, ArQule Inc, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Janssen Biotech Inc, Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company,: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Loxo Oncology Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly & Company: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences Inc: Other: Data & Safety. Flinn: Verastem: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; IGM Biosciences: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Yingli Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Loxo: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: All Consultancy and Research Funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Great Point Partners: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Iksuda Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; BeiGene: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Forty Seven: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Calithera Biosciences: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Merck: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Teva: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Seagen: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Incyte: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Agios: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Curis: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; ArQule: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Forma Therapeutics: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Nurix Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Trillium Therapeutics: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Triphase Research & Development Corp.: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Century Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Hutchison MediPharma: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Vincerx Pharma: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Sarah Cannon Research Institute: Current Employment; Servier Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Yingli Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Seagen: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Servier Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Awan: Verastem: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Dava Oncology: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Kite pharma: Consultancy; Gilead sciences: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Cardinal Health: Consultancy; ADCT therapeutics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Astrazeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Eradat: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Brander: Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Biosimilars outcomes research panel; Juno Therapeutics/Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; LOXO: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy; ArQule/Merck: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; NCCN: Other: panel member; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: informCLL registry steering committee, Research Funding. Parikh: Pharmacyclics, MorphoSys, Janssen, AstraZeneca, TG Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, AbbVie, and Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Verastem Oncology, and AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Phillips: BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Other: received travel expenses from Incyte, Research Funding; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADCT, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardinal Health, Incyte, Karyopharm, Morphosys, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Reddy: Merck & Co., Inc.: Current Employment. Farooqui: Merck & Co., Inc.: Current Employment, Other: Current Stockholder. Byrd: Vincerx Pharmaceuticals: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis, Trillium, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics, Syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria; Newave: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stephens: CSL Behring: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Arqule: Research Funding; Mingsight: Research Funding; JUNO: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Renal light chain (AL) amyloidosis typically manifests as proteinuria with or without renal failure and is associated with a risk of progression to renal replacement therapy (RRT). A significant reduction in circulating amyloidogenic light chain is needed to achieve a renal response. Current renal response criteria are binary defining a renal response as &gt;30% reduction in 24-h proteinuria without worsening estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Several studies suggest that greater reduction in proteinuria following successful therapy improves renal and overall survival. Methods: AL amyloidosis patients diagnosed between 2010 to 2015, achieving at least hematological partial response (hemPR) to therapy and with renal involvement (defined as 24-h non-selective proteinuria &gt;0.5 g/24-h) were included. Four predefined renal response categories were formulated based on reduction level in pretreatment 24-h proteinuria in the absence of renal progression (≥25% decrease in eGFR): renal complete response (renCR, 24-h proteinuria ≤200 mg/24-h); renal very good partial response (renVGPR, &gt;60% reduction in 24-h proteinuria); renal partial response (renPR, 31-60% reduction in 24-proteinuria); and renal no response (renNR, 30% or less reduction). Renal response was assessed at landmark (6-, 12-, and 24 months from treatment initiation) and as best renal response. Graded renal responses were assessed as predictors for time from diagnosis to RRT and overall survival. Results: Seven hundred and thirty-seven patients were included. The median age was 63. The breakdown of renal stage was: I, 34%; II, 52%; and III, 14%. Eighty percent of patients received 1 line of therapy within 12 months of their diagnosis. Bortezomib-based therapy was given to 60% of the patients; 28% received autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) as their first line therapy. Hematological CR was achieved in 44% of patients, followed by hematological very good partial response (38%) and hemPR (18%). RRT was required during follow-up in 15% of patients (n=108) with a median time from diagnosis to RRT of 18 (IQR 6-43) months. Twenty-eight percent of the patients died. The median follow-up of the surviving patients was 69 months (IQR 56-86). Reduction in 24-h proteinuria from baseline improved over time with a median reduction of 34%, 50% and 71% at 6-month, 12-month, and 24-months, respectively. At best response, renCR, renVGPR, renPR and renNR were achieved in 27% (n=199), 34% (n=247), 15% (n=112) and 24% (n=179) of patients, respectively. The median time to best renal response among renal responders was 17 (IQR 8-31) months, longer for renCR (23 months, IQR 10-40) compared to renVGPR (16 months, IQR 9-27) or renPR (11 months, IQR 6-19). A renal response as early as 6 months after therapy initiation was able to predict time to RRT with an increase in RRT risk with lower level of renal response at that time point (5-year RRT risk 0%, 3%, 9% and 16% for renCR, renVGPR, renPR and renNR, respectively, P&lt;0.001, Figure 1A). Prediction of risk for RRT based on renal response depth improved at 12- and 24-months (Figure 1B-C) and at best renal response (Figure 1D). Overall survival discrimination based on renal response depth was noted as early as 12 months from therapy initiation and improved with time. Renal response criteria as best response were tested in a univariate analysis and multivariable proportional hazard models for time to RRT and OS. The graded renal response criteria demonstrated an independent prognostic role for time to RRT and OS. Along with renal stage, graded renal responses were the strongest predictors for time to RRT. Conclusions: We validated new graded renal response criteria based on reduction in 24-h proteinuria. These 4-level renal response criteria highlight the importance of achieving a deep renal response to improve renal and overall survival. These findings will allow clinicians to make decisions on therapy changes or augmentation based on response depth as early as 6-months, before irreversible renal failure develops. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Palladini: Janssen Global Services: Honoraria, Other: advisory board fees; Siemens: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Milani: Celgene: Other: Travel support; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Schönland: Sanofi: Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Pfizer: Honoraria. Hegenbart: Akcea: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Prothena: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Dispenzieri: Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Alnylam: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kumar: Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Carsgen: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; 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. Kastritis: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis Pharma: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Dimopoulos: Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Liedtke: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; Alnylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Witteles: Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Alnylam: Honoraria, Research Funding; Eidos: Research Funding. Sanchorawala: Pfizer: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptide: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sorrento: Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Landau: Takeda, Janssen, Caelum Biosciences, Celgene, Pfizer, Genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Genzyme: Honoraria. Cibeira: Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Akcea: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wechalekar: Caelum Biosciences: Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Consultancy. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria.

Abstract Introduction: Binary cardiac response assessment using NT-proBNP is prognostic in light chain (AL) amyloidosis. Previous studies suggested that refining the criteria to multi-level cardiac responses improves prognostic prediction. We validate a graded cardiac response assessment tool in AL amyloidosis using NT-proBNP or BNP. Methods: In this retrospective, multicenter study AL amyloidosis patients who were diagnosed between 2010 and 2015, achieving at least a hematological partial response (PR) within 12 months of diagnosis and were evaluable for cardiac response (defined as baseline NT-proBNP &gt;650 pg/mL or BNP &gt;150 pg/mL) were included. The following response criteria were tested: cardiac complete response (carCR, nadir NT-proBNP≤350 pg/mL or BNP≤80 pg/mL); cardiac very good partial response (carVGPR, &gt;60% reduction in NT-proBNP/BNP); Cardiac PR (carPR 31-60% reduction); and cardiac non response (carNR, ≤30% reduction). Response was assessed at fixed time points (6, 12 and 24 months from therapy initiation) and at best response. The primary outcome was overall survival based on depth of cardiac response. Multivariate Cox proportional models were analyzed to determine independent prognostic factors for OS and time to cardiac progression using variables with p-value &lt;0.1 in a univariate analysis. Results: Six hundred and fifty-one patients were included. The median age was 64 years. Mayo 2004 cardiac stage II, IIIA and IIIB was present in 47.5%, 38% and 14.5% of patients, respectively (by definition, patients with Mayo stage I do not have cardiac amyloidosis evaluable for response). Seventy-six percent of patients received only one line of therapy within the initial 12 months of diagnosis. Bortezomib-based therapy was the most common (70.2% of patients) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in 15.7% of patients. Hematological CR, hematological VGPR and hematological PR as best response was achieved in 38%, 39% and 23% of patients, respectively. Forty-three percent of the patients have died, with 36% of the patients dying within 5-years of diagnosis. The median follow-up of the surviving patients is 70 months (IQR 56-84). Cardiac response was evaluable using NT-proBNP in 494 patients (75.9%), BNP in 109 patients (16.7%) and both NT-proBNP and BNP in 48 patients (7.4%). The latter two were grouped together for further analysis. The median time to best cardiac response among responders was 12 months (IQR 7-21 months; 18 months for carCR, 11.5 months for carVGPR and 9.5 months for carPR). Cardiac response improved over time with a median percentage reduction in NT-proBNP/BNP compared to baseline of 15%, 37% and 54%, at 6, 12 and 24 months respectively. Cardiac responses at 6-, 12- and 24-months are depicted in Figure 1A. At best cardiac response, carCR, carVGPR, carPR and carNR were achieved in 16%, 26%, 23% and 35% of patients, respectively. Patients who achieved a carCR had lower cardiac stage at diagnosis compared to patients who achieved carVGPR or carPR (stage II 65% vs 47% vs 47%, respectively; P&lt;0.001). At least carPR at 6 and 12 months and at least carVGPR at 24-months was associated with better survival compared with a lower depth of response. At best cardiac response, deeper cardiac response was associated with a longer survival (5-year OS 93%, 80%, 62% and 35% for carCR, carVGPR, carPR and carNR, respectively; P&lt;0.001, Figure 1B). A 2-year landmark analysis (excluding early deaths not evaluable for cardiac response depth) confirmed improved survival with a deeper cardiac response (5-year OS 93%, 82%, 70% and 58%, P&lt;0.001; Figure 1C). These cardiac response criteria were independent predictors of survival and time to cardiac progression (&gt;30% rise in NT-proBNP/BNP) in multivariate analysis that included age, type of first line therapy, light chain burden, cardiac stage, and hematological response. Conclusions: We validated the prognostic value of graded cardiac response. These response criteria allow better discrimination of patient populations and assessment of treatment effectiveness in an era of improved therapies for AL amyloidosis. The study emphasizes the importance of early diagnosis which increases the likelihood of deep and durable cardiac responses. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Palladini: Siemens: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Janssen Global Services: Honoraria, Other: advisory board fees. Schönland: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Sanofi: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Prothena: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants. Hegenbart: Alnylam: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Prothena: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Akcea: Honoraria. Kumar: Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Kastritis: Genesis Pharma: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Dimopoulos: Beigene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Liedtke: GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Witteles: Eidos: Research Funding; Alnylam: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding. Sanchorawala: Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Regeneron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Oncopeptide: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sorrento: Research Funding. Landau: Genzyme: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Takeda, Janssen, Caelum Biosciences, Celgene, Pfizer, Genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cibeira: Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Akcea: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option.

Abstract BACKGROUND The Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) is a phase II platform trial with Bayesian adaptive randomization and deep genomic profiling to more efficiently test experimental agents in newly diagnosed glioblastoma and to prioritize therapies for late-stage testing. METHODS In the ongoing INSIGhT trial, patients with newly diagnosed MGMT-unmethylated glioblastoma are randomized to the control arm or one of three experimental therapy arms (CC-115, abemaciclib, and neratinib). The control arm therapy is radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide, and primary endpoint is overall survival. Randomization has been adapted based on Bayesian estimation of biomarker-specific probability of treatment impact on progression-free survival (PFS). All tumors undergo detailed molecular sequencing, and this is facilitated with the companion ALLELE protocol. To evaluate feasibility of this approach, we assessed the status of this ongoing trial. RESULTS Since INSIGhT was activated 4.3 years ago, it has expanded to include 12 sites across the United States. A total of 247 patients have been enrolled. Randomization probabilities have been repeatedly adjusted over time based upon early PFS results to alter the randomization ratio from standard 1:1:1:1 randomization. All three arms have completed accrual and efficacy estimates are available based upon comparison to the common control arm in context of relevant biomarkers. There are 87 patients alive and in follow-up, and there are ongoing plans to add additional arms to evaluate further treatments in the future. CONCLUSION The INSIGhT trial demonstrates that a multi-center Bayesian adaptive platform trial is a feasible and effective approach to help prioritize therapies and biomarkers for newly diagnosed GBM. The trial has maintained robust accrual, and the simultaneous testing of multiple agents, sharing a common control arm and adaptive randomization serve as features to increase trial efficiency relative to traditional clinical trial designs.

Abstract BACKGROUND EGFR is amplified in over 50% of glioblastoma and 20-30% have EGFRvIII mutations. Neratinib is a potent inhibitor of EGFR/HER2 approved for metastatic HER2+ breast cancer. To efficiently evaluate the potential impact of neratinib on overall survival (OS) in newly-diagnosed glioblastoma and to simultaneously develop information regarding potential genomic biomarker associations, neratinib was included as an arm on the Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) trial. INSIGhT is a phase II platform trial using response adaptive randomization and deep genomic profiling to more efficiently test experimental agents in MGMT unmethylated glioblastoma and accelerate identification of novel therapies for phase III testing. Initial randomization was equal between neratinib, control, and two other experimental arms but subsequent randomization was adapted based on efficacy as determined by progression-free survival (PFS). We report preliminary results for the neratinib arm. METHODS Patients with newly diagnosed MGMT-unmethylated glioblastoma were randomized to receive either radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide or standard radiochemotherapy followed by adjuvant neratinib (240 mg daily). Treatment continued until progression or development of unacceptable toxicities. The primary endpoint was OS. Association between neratinib efficacy and EGFR amplification was also investigated. RESULTS There were 144 patients (70 control; 74 neratinib). Neratinib was reasonably well-tolerated with no new toxicity signals identified. PFS was compared (HR 0.84; p=0.38, logrank test – not significant) between the neratinib (median 6.05 months) and control (median 5.82 months) arms. For patients EGFR pathway activation the PFS HR was 0.53 (p-value=0.03 – significant, median PFS: neratinib, 6.21 months, control, 5.26 months). However, there was no significant improvement in OS in EGFR amplified/mutated patients (HR 1.05; p-value 0.87) between neratinib (median 14.2) compared to the control arm (median 14.6). CONCLUSION Neratinib prolonged PFS in the EGFR positive subpopulation but there was no overall PFS benefit, or any OS improvement.