Citations

Abstract Background Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) are mainly diagnosed based on morphological changes in the bone marrow. The diagnosis can be challenging in patients (pts) with pancytopenia with minimal dysplasia, and is subject to inter-observer variability. Somatic mutations can be identified in either disease but no genes, in isolation or in combination, are specific for disease phenotype. We developed a geno-clinical model that uses mutational data, peripheral blood values, and clinical variables to predict an MDS vs. CMML diagnosis in pts who presented with cytopenias, in the absence of bone marrow biopsy results. Method We combined genomic and clinical data from 1897 pts treated at our institution (593) and the Munich Leukemia Laboratory (1304). Pts were diagnosed with MDS or CMML according to 2008 WHO criteria. Diagnosis of MDS and CMML was confirmed by independent hematopathologists that were not associated with the study. A genomic panel of 40 genes commonly mutated in myeloid malignancies was included. The initial cohort was randomly (computer generated) divided into learner (80%) and validation (20%) cohorts. Multiple machine learning algorithms were applied to predict the phenotype. Feature extraction algorithms were used to extract genomic/clinical variables that impacted the algorithm decision and to visualize the impact of each variable on phenotype. Prediction performance was evaluated according to the area under the curve of the receiver operator characteristic (ROC-AUC) and confusion/accuracy matrices. Results Of 1897 pts included, 1368 pts had MDS and 529 had CMML. The median age for the entire cohort was 72 years (range, 11-102); 37% were female. The median white blood cell count (WBC) was 5.1x109/L (range, 0.60-176), absolute monocyte count (AMC) 0.19 x109/L (range, 0-96), absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) 0.77x109/L (range, 0-62), absolute neutrophil count (ANC) 2.44x109/L (range, 0-170), hemoglobin (Hgb) 10.2 (range, 3.9-19.6), and platelet (Plt) count 111x103/mL (range 2-1491). The most commonly mutated genes in all pts were: TET2 (33%), ASXL1 (26%), SF3B1 (21%), SRSF2 (16%), RUNX1 (12%), DNMT3A (10%), CBL (7%), U2AF1 (7%), STAG2 (6%), EZH2 (6%), ZRSR2 (6%), NRAS (6%). In CMML, they were: TET2 (51%), ASXL1 (43%), SRSF2 (25%), RUNX1 (18%), CBL (16%), KRAS (12%), NRAS (11%), EZH2 (9%), JAK2 (6%), U2AF1 (5%), SF3B1 (4%), and DNMT3A (3%). In MDS, they were: TET2 (27%), SF3B1 (24%), ASXL1 (21%), SRSF2 (13%), DNMT3A (12%), RUNX1 (10%), STAG2 (8%), U2AF1 (8%), ZRSR2 (7%), TP53 (7%), BCOR (5%), and EZH2 (5%).The median total number of mutations/sample was 2 (range 0-27) for all pts, 2 (range 0-8) for CMML, and 2 (range 0-27) for MDS. A set of 83 genomic/clinical variables were evaluated and several feature extraction algorithms were used to identify the least number of variables that have the most significant impact on the algorithm's decision. These variables included: AMC, ALC, TET2, ANC, ASXL1, SF3B1, Hgb, number of mutations/sample, AEC, age, Plt, splenomegaly, RUNX1, NRAS, CBL, U2AF1, STAG2, DNMT3A, TP53, EZH2, SRSF2, and ZRSR2, Figure 1. When applying the model to the validation cohort, the ROC-AUC was .98 with an accuracy of 94%, with other statistical values as follows: specificities CMML 93%, MDS 96%; sensitivities CMML 96%, MDS 93%; positive predictive values CMML 84%, MDS 98%; negative predictive values CMML 98%, MDS 84%. Individual pt data can also be entered into the model, with a probability of whether the diagnosis is MDS vs. CMML provided along with the impact of each variable on the decision, as shown in Figure 1. When the analysis was restricted to mutations only, the accuracy of the model dropped dramatically (77%, ROC-AUC .85). Conclusions We propose a novel approach using interpretable, individualized modeling to predict MDS vs. CMML phenotypes based on genomic and clinical data without the need for bone marrow biopsy data. This approach can aid clinicians and hematopathologists when encountering pts with cytopenias and a diagnosis suspicious for MDS vs. CMML. The model also provides feature attributions that allow for quantitative understanding of the complex interplay among genotype, clinical variables, and phenotype. Disclosures Sekeres: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Opsona: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Opsona: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Meggendorfer:MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory: Employment. Walter:MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory: Employment. Hutter:MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory: Employment. Savona:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Gerds:CTI Biopharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Apexx Oncology: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Sallman:Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Komrokji:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Haferlach:MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory: Employment, Equity Ownership. Maciejewski:Apellis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Ra Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Consultancy; Apellis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Ra Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Consultancy; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Haferlach:MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory: Employment, Equity Ownership. Nazha:MEI: Consultancy.

Abstract Relapse of malignancy and lethal graft versus host disease (GVHD) are the principal causes of failure of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT). Recently we have shown that at seven days after HCT an algorithm using two serum biomarkers (ST2 and REG3α) can predict severe GVHD (Hartwell et al. JCI Insight 2017). We determined whether serial testing (in the first month following HCT) of patients with low probability biomarkers would improve the predictive accuracy of the algorithm and identify patients with different risks of relapse and lethal GVHD. Patients who received an HCT at 18 centers in the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) for hematologic malignancy and who supplied three blood samples were divided into a training set and validation set with equal numbers of lethal GVHD events, which was defined as death from GVHD or infection during treatment for GVHD. Patients in the training set (n=702) underwent HCT from January 1, 2006 until June 30, 2015, whereas patients in the validation set (n=906) underwent HCT from July 1, 2015 to May 1, 2017. Serum samples were analyzed using the previously published algorithm of two biomarkers up to three times (day 7, day 14, day 28 or GVHD onset, if onset occurred within the first 28 days). The algorithm generates a predicted probability of lethal GVHD between 0 and 1 for each patient. Patients were categorized as either low probability (LP) or high probability (HP) for lethal GVHD. HP thresholds of 0.20 and 0.16 were used to classify patients with and without GVHD symptoms, respectively (once categorized as HP, patients remained in that category and were not retested). All results were similar between training and validation sets, and we present here the validation set results. Serial testing identified 28% of patients as HP with a three-fold greater cumulative incidence of lethal GVHD at one year (13% vs 4%, p<0.001, Figure 1). Relapse rates were the same in both probability groups, and thus LP patients experienced significantly better relapse free survival (RFS) (69% vs 53%, p<0.001). As expected, significantly fewer LP patients experienced severe GVHD at onset (as measured by Minnesota risk), maximum grade III/IV GVHD, or steroid resistant GVHD by day 180 after HCT (Figure 2, p<0.001 for all three parameters). To measure the accuracy of prediction, at each timepoint we calculated the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic curves; the AUC increased significantly with each subsequent evaluation, from 0.59 at one timepoint (dotted line) to 0.74 at the third timepoint (solid line) (p<0.001), with a final sensitivity of 65% and specificity of 74% (Figure 3A). Early development of GVHD (by day 28) is a risk factor for lethal GVHD. Therefore, we next plotted RFS (dashed line), relapse (solid line), and lethal GVHD (dotted line) rates in patients who developed GVHD by day 28. 25% of patients with GVHD were categorized as HP and had a cumulative incidence of lethal GVHD more than four times higher (28%) than that of relapse (6%); however the risks were reversed for the 75% of patients who were LP, where relapse (15%) occurred twice as often as lethal GVHD (7%) (Figure 3B). In patients who did not develop GVHD in the first month, this reversal of risks was even more dramatic. Approximately half (53%) of the entire validation cohort did not develop GVHD by day 28 and was LP at all three evaluations. These patients had an exceptionally low risk of lethal GVHD and thus they relapsed (25%) much more often than they died from GVHD (3%). When malignancies were classified according to risk for relapse by the disease risk index (DRI) (Figure 3C), the probability of relapse was three fold higher than lethal GVHD in malignancies with a low DRI (12%), six fold higher for intermediate DRI (20%), and eleven fold higher for high/very high DRI (33%). We conclude that a serial monitoring strategy using GVHD biomarkers for one month after HCT is able to identify two groups of patients with very different risks of lethal GVHD and relapse. For these patients, the intensity of immunosuppression after day 28 could be tailored according to the probabilities of developing lethal GVHD and relapse in the context of clinical trials. Disclosures Aziz: Doris Duke Charitable Foundation: Research Funding. Ayuk:Therakos (Mallinckrodt): Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Chen:REGiMMUNE: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Merli:Neovii Biotech: Honoraria; AMGEN: Honoraria. Roesler:Sanofi: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Amgen: Equity Ownership; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Immunomedics: Equity Ownership; Biogen: Equity Ownership; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Kitko:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Mallinckrodt: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Qayed:Novartis: Consultancy. Wölfl:Bristol-myers Squibb: Equity Ownership; Novartis: Equity Ownership; Taheda: Equity Ownership; Juno: Equity Ownership; Neovii: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Mielke:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; DGHO: Speakers Bureau; EHA: Speakers Bureau; Kiadis Pharma: Speakers Bureau; Miltenyi: Speakers Bureau. Wudhikarn:Takeda Oncology: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Nakamura:Celgene: Honoraria; Molmed: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Atara: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Pulsipher:CSL Behring: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria. Reshef:Pfizer: Consultancy; Atara Biotherapeutics: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Levine:Therakos: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bluebird: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kamada: Research Funding; Viracor: Patents & Royalties. Ferrara:Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Xenikos: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Kamada: Consultancy, Research Funding; Viracor: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties.

Abstract Introduction: CMML is a clinically heterogeneous myeloid neoplasm hallmarked by the coexistence of dysplastic and proliferative patho-clinical features, which can include cytopenias, constitutional symptoms, splenomegaly, and leukocytosis. However, according to the FAB classification schema, CMML may be differentiated in dysplastic and proliferative subgroups only by the presence of leukocytosis in the latter (WBC ≥13 x 109/L). We hypothesize that incorporation of other clinically discriminating features may yield a more informative CMML stratification system. To address this, we propose three distinct CMML categories and explore their clinical relevance leveraging our existing international CMML database (Padron E et al. Blood Cancer J. 20151). Method: 1622 WHO-defined CMML cases diagnosed between 1973 and 2014 were collected from eight large cancer centres that include up to 80 discrete data elements as previously described1. Cases were placed into three clinically distinct groups and the Pearson Chi-Square test and the Kruskal-Wallis test were applied respectively to compare categorical and continuous characteristics. The Kaplan-Meier (KM) method was used to estimate median OS and the log rank test was used to compare survival curves.Cox models whereapplied to obtain univariate and adjusted hazard ratios. Identification of optimal cut-off values for continuous variable was supported by graphical inspection of martingale residuals from the null Cox model. Statistical analyses were done in SPSS v23 and R v.3.3.0. Results: We propose three categories to delineate clinically distinct CMML subtypes: (1) Myelodysplastic (MD)-CMML: WBC≤10 x 109/L, PB-immature myeloid cells (IMC) = 0%, no splenomegaly (2) MD/MP-CMML: WBC 10-20 x 109/L or WBC ≤10 x 109/L but PB-IMC>0% and/or splenomegaly (3) Myeloproliferative (MP)-CMML: WBC >20 x 109/L. A recursive partitioning approach was used to identify the WBC cut points, with splenomegaly and IMC added to more accurately depict the MPN aspect of CMML. Numbers of patients included in the MD-, MD/MP-, and MP-CMML subcategories were 319 (19.7%), 789 (48.6%) and 514 (31.7%), respectively (Table 1). According to the FAB criteria, the MD/MP group included 521 (66%) MD- (WBC ≤13 x 109/L) and 268 (34%) MP-CMML (WBC>13 x 109/L) patients suggesting that the proposed classification clinically reclassifies FAB-defined CMML. Within the MD/MP group, 344 patients (21.2%) had a WBC <10 x 109/L but with IMC>0% and/or splenomegaly. Comparison of overall survival (OS) among proposed groups demonstrated that this classification schema was capable of discriminating the CMML natural history (Figure 1). In comparison to MD/MP-CMML, the unadjusted OS Hazard Ratio (HR) was 0.60 (95% CI 0.49-0.73) for MD-CMML and 1.57 (95% CI 1.36-1.81) for MP-CMML (p<0.001 for both). This difference was retained after adjusting for BM-Blasts (< vs ≥5%), IPSS or CPSS cytogenetics (High-risk vsInterm/low-risk), and elevated levels of LDH (HR was 0.73 with 95% CI 0.57-0.93, p=0.011 for MD-CMML, and 1.33 with 95% CI 1.12-1.58, p=0.001 for MP-CMML, respectively). We next explored whether each proposed group may have distinct variables that uniquely govern its prognosis. Peripheral blood blasts >5%, RBC- and PLT-transfusion-dependence predicted poor OS only in the MD and MD/MP-subcategories (p<0.005), but had no impact in the MP-CMML. Male gender and elevated LDH were only significantly associated with prognosis in the MD/MP group (p<0.05 and p<0.005, respectively) while absolute lymphocyte count >2.5 x 109/L and absolute monocyte count >10 x109/L were uniquely predictive for shorter survival in the MP-CMML subcategory (p<0.005). Notably, we additionally identified gene mutations that uniquely predicted prognosis in each proposed group (Table 2). Conclusions: We demonstrate that our proposed 3-group clinical classification schema is capable of independently stratifying prognosis. Further, our analysis identified clinical and genetic variables that uniquely govern each group's prognosis, suggesting independent clinical behaviour. Further investigations are warranted to validate these groups. Disclosures Jabbour: ARIAD: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy. Fenaux:Celgene, Janssen,Novartis, Astex, Teva: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kantarjian:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer Inc: Research Funding; Delta-Fly Pharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Komrokji:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Introduction: CMML is a heterogeneous malignancy characterized by peripheral monocytosis and a propensity for AML transformation. Given the low incidence of CMML and its broad range complexity, a large disease-specific data set is necessary to discern independent co-variates predictive of disease behavior. Several prognostic models derived from smaller data sets have been developed to stratify CMML patients into distinct groups that are predictive for OS. However, the validity of these models in a large international data set has never been investigated. Here, we present the largest International CMML data base established to date and report key baseline characteristics predictive for disease outcome. We externally validate and perform a detailed statistical comparison between the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS), Revised (R)-IPSS, Global MD Anderson Scoring System (MDASC), MD Anderson Prognostic Score (MDAPS), Dusseldorf Score (DS), Mayo, and Spanish Scoring Systems (CPSS). Methods: Data were abstracted by each contributing institution and deposited for central data review at the Moffitt Cancer Center. Manual review of cases was performed to ensure data quality prior to analysis. Only WHO defined CMML was included. The primary objective of this study was to establish an international CMML data set and validate the above models calculated at the time of presentation to each center. All prognostic models were calculated as previously described. The Kaplan–Meier (KM) method was used to estimate median OS and the log rank test was used to compare KM survival estimates with SPSS version 21.0. Random Forest Survival (RSF) and ROC analysis was done with R. Results: Between July 1981 and June 2014, 1832 CMML patients were captured in the International CMML database. Median age at diagnosis was 70 (16-93) years with a male (67%) predominance. By the WHO classification, the majority of patients had CMML-1 (79.9% vs. 20.1%) and most patients were evenly subcategorized as MPN-CMML (49.8%) versus MDS-CMML (50.2%) by FAB criteria. Splenomegaly was demonstrable in 25%. Most patients had favorable cytogenetics by both IPSS (70%) and CPSS (67.6%) classification schemas. Mean BM blast % was 5.6 and mean monocyte count was 4.85x103/dL. Median OS of the entire data set was 31.6 months. All tested prognostic models were valid and able to predict OS (p<0.0001). To compare relative model performance, 1013 complete cases with sufficient data to calculate all risk models were compared using time dependent receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves and their area under the curves (AUC). ROC curves were calculated for OS at 36 months. The R-IPSS model had the highest AUC (0.694) while the DS model had the lowest (0.635). The difference in AUC between the R-IPSS and DS models was statistically significant (p = 0.003) whereas there was no significant difference from other models tested. To determine which models were most vulnerable to reclassification from low-risk to higher risk, we calculated a vulnerability score defined by the number of models able to up-stage low-risk disease in more than 15% of cases. Using this metric, the Mayo and MDASC scores were least vulnerable to up-staging by other models. Lastly, we used an orthogonal method for determination of variable importance (RSF for OS at 36 months). RSF is an ensemble method of classification and regression tree methodology. Ranking of variables by their weighted importance determined by this procedure identified the top five variables were hemoglobin, circulating blasts, platelet count, number of cytopenias, and karyotype. A new risk model was developed using the results of the RSF with an AUC of 0.720, which was comparable but not significantly different than other modern scoring systems. Conclusions: This represents the largest international CMML-specific data set derived from eight unique centers of excellence. All modern prognostic models were valid and performed comparably. Despite novel strategies for variable importance discovery, an improved model could not be constructed. This data suggest that the power of clinical variables has reached an asymptote and highlights the need for incorporation of molecular and other novel biological features. This data set is currently being populated with molecular data and is being leveraged to test published CMML molecular prognostic models which will be disclosed at the time of presentation. Disclosures Garcia-Manero: Epizyme, Inc: Research Funding. Fenaux:Celgene, Janssenm, Novartis: Research Funding. Kantarjian:ARIAD, Pfizer, Amgen: Research Funding. Sekeres:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen Corp: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer-Ingelheim Corp: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract No laboratory test can predict non-relapse mortality (NRM) after hematopoietic cellular transplantation (HCT) prior to the onset graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). Recently, we have shown that a signature of three GVHD plasma biomarkers (TNFR1, ST2, and REG3α) can predict response to GVHD therapy and NRM at the onset of clinical GVHD (Levine, Lancet Haem, 2015). Our goal in the current study was to identify a blood biomarker signature that could predict lethal GVHD and six-month NRM well in advance of the onset of GVHD symptoms. Patient samples on day +7 after HCT were obtained from 1,287 patients from 11 HCT centers in the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC). Samples from two large centers (n = 929) were combined and randomly assigned to a training set (n = 620) and test set (n = 309). 358 patients from nine others centers constituted an independent validation set. The overall cumulative incidences of 6-month NRM were 11%, 12%, and 13% for the training, test, and validation sets respectively. The incidence of lethal GVHD, defined as death without preceding relapse while under steroid treatment for acute GVHD, were 18%, 24%, and 14% in the same groups, respectively. The median day of GVHD onset was 28 days in the training set and 29 days in the test and validation sets. We measured four GVHD related biomarkers [ST2, REG3α, TNFR1, and IL2Rα] in all samples and used the training set alone to develop competing risks regression models that used all 13 possible combinations of one to four biomarkers to predict 6-month NRM. The best algorithm, which we rigorously confirmed through Monte Carlo cross-validation of 75 different combinations of training sets, included ST2 and REG3α. No combination of one, three, or four biomarkers was superior to the combination of these two biomarkers. The day 7 algorithm identified high risk (HR) and low risk (LR) groups with 6-month NRMs of 28% and 7%, respectively (p<0.001) (Fig 1A). The relapse rates did not differ between risk groups so that overall survival (OS) was 60% for HR and 84% for LR (p<0.001) (Fig 1B). When applied to the test set (Fig 1C/D), the algorithm identified 54/309 (17%) of the patients as HR with an NRM of 33% vs 7% for LR patients (p<0.001) and 6-month OS of 57% and 81% for HR and LR patients, respectively (p<0.001). In the independent validation set (Fig 1 E/F), the algorithm identified 72/358 (20%) of the patients as HR with an NRM of 26% vs 10% for LR patients (p<0.001) and OS of 68% and 85% for HR and LR patients, respectively (p<0.001). High risk patients were three times more likely to die from GVHD than LR patients in each cohort (p<0.001) (Fig 2). The GI tract is the GVHD target organ that is most resistant to treatment and represents a major cause of NRM, and we observed twice as much severe GI GVHD (stage 3 or 4) in HR patients as in LR patients (p<0.001, data not shown). The algorithm successfully separated HR and LR strata for 6 month NRM in several groups with differing risks for GVHD and NRM, including donor type, degree. of HLA-match, age group, and conditioning regimen intensity (Fig 3). In conclusion, we have developed a blood biomarker algorithm that predicts the development of lethal GVHD seven days after HCT, which performed successfully in large multicenter validation sets. The GVH reaction is already in progress by day +7, even though clinical symptoms may not occur until days or weeks later. We speculate that the blood biomarker concentrations at this early time point reflect subclinical GI pathology, a notion that is reinforced by the fact that ST2 and REG3α, the two biomarkers in the algorithm, are closely associated with GI GVHD. The algorithm identified HR and LR strata in several patient groups with different overall risk for lethal GVHD (donor, HLA match, conditioning regimen intensity, age). This day +7 algorithm should prove useful in clinical BMT research by identifying patients at high risk for lethal GVHD who might benefit from aggressive preemptive treatment strategies. Disclosures Chen: Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Jagasia:Therakos: Consultancy. Kitko:Therakos: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kroeger:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Levine:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarkers patent. Ferrara:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarkers patent.

OBJECTIVEThe primary goal of the treatment of cerebral arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) is angiographic occlusion to eliminate future hemorrhage risk. Although multimodal treatment is increasingly used for AVMs, periprocedural hemorrhage after transarterial embolization is a potential endovascular complication that is only partially understood and merits quantification.METHODSSearching the period between 1990 and 2019, the authors of this meta-analysis queried the PubMed and Embase databases for studies reporting periprocedural hemorrhage (within 30 days) after liquid embolization (using cyanoacrylate or ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer) of AVMs. Random effects meta-analysis was used to evaluate the pooled rate of flow-related hemorrhage (those attributed to alterations in AVM dynamics), technical hemorrhage (those related to procedural complications), and total hemorrhage. Meta-regression was used to analyze the study-level predictors of hemorrhage, including patient age, Spetzler-Martin grade, hemorrhagic presentation, embolysate used, intent of treatment (adjuvant vs curative), associated aneurysms, endovascular angiographic obliteration, year of study publication, and years the procedures were performed.RESULTSA total of 98 studies with 8009 patients were included in this analysis, and the mean number of embolization sessions per patient was 1.9. The pooled flow-related and total periprocedural hemorrhage rates were 2.0% (95% CI 1.5%–2.4%) and 2.6% (95% CI 2.1%–3.0%) per procedure and 3.4% (95% CI 2.6%–4.2%) and 4.8% (95% CI 4.0%–5.6%) per patient, respectively. The mortality and morbidity rates associated with hemorrhage were 14.6% and 45.1%, respectively. Subgroup analyses revealed a pooled total hemorrhage rate per procedure of 1.8% (95% CI 1.0%–2.5%) for adjuvant (surgery or radiosurgery) and 4.6% (95% CI 2.8%–6.4%) for curative intent. The treatment of aneurysms (p = 0.04) and larger patient populations (p < 0.001) were significant predictors of a lower hemorrhage rate, whereas curative intent (p = 0.04), angiographic obliteration achieved endovascularly (p = 0.003), and a greater number of embolization sessions (p = 0.03) were significant predictors of a higher hemorrhage rate. There were no significant differences in periprocedural hemorrhage rates according to the years evaluated or the embolysate utilized.CONCLUSIONSIn this study-level meta-analysis, periprocedural hemorrhage was seen after 2.6% of transarterial embolization procedures for cerebral AVMs. The adjuvant use of endovascular embolization, including in the treatment of associated aneurysms and in the presurgical or preradiosurgical setting, was a study-level predictor of significantly lower hemorrhage rates, whereas more aggressive embolization involving curative intent and endovascular angiographic obliteration was a predictor of a significantly higher total hemorrhage rate.

Background: Open surgical closure and small-bore suture-based preclosure devices have limitations when used for transcatheter aortic valve replacement, percutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, or percutaneous thoracic endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. The MANTA vascular closure device is a novel collagen-based technology designed to close large bore arteriotomies created by devices with an outer diameter ranging from 12F to 25F. In this study, we determined the safety and effectiveness of the MANTA vascular closure device. Methods and Results: A prospective, single arm, multicenter investigation in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, percutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, or thoracic endovascular aortic aneurysm repair at 20 sites in North America. The primary outcome was time to hemostasis. The primary safety outcomes were accessed site-related vascular injury or bleeding complications. A total of 341 patients, 78 roll-in, and 263 in the primary analysis cohort, were entered in the study between November 2016 and September 2017. For the primary analysis cohort, transcatheter aortic valve replacement was performed in 210 (79.8%), and percutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair or thoracic endovascular aortic aneurysm repair was performed in 53 (20.2%). The 14F MANTA was used in 42 cases (16%), and the 18F was used in 221 cases(84%). The mean effective sheath outer diameter was 22F (7.3 mm). The mean time to hemostasis was 65±157 seconds with a median time to hemostasis of 24 seconds. Technical success was achieved in 257 (97.7%) patients, and a single device was deployed in 262 (99.6%) of cases. Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 major vascular complications occurred in 11 (4.2%) cases: 4 received a covered stent (1.5%), 3 had access site bleeding (1.1%), 2 underwent surgical repair (0.8%), and 2 underwent balloon inflation (0.8%). Conclusions: In a selected population, this study demonstrated that the MANTA percutaneous vascular closure device can safely and effectively close large bore arteriotomies created by current generation transcatheter aortic valve replacement, percutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, and thoracic endovascular aortic aneurysm repair devices. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02908880.

3583 Background: The Microsatellite instability (MSI) or deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) phenotype is usually taken as a single biological entity whereas no data are available concerning prognosis and response to chemotherapy between sporadic and familial dMMR cases. Methods: Resected KRAS exon 2 wild-type (WT) tumor stage III colon cancers (N = 4596) from patients (pts) randomly assigned to FOLFOX +/- cetuximab in two adjuvant large phase III trials were prospectively analyzed for MSI status and dMMR mechanism (sporadic vs familial). Stratified Cox models were used to assess prognostic and predictive values of dMMR mechanism by treatment arms, adjusting for age, gender, tumor grade, ECOG PS, pT/pN stage and primary tumor location. Results: Among dMMR patients with complete data for dMMR mechanism analysis (N = 354), there were 255 (72%) sporadic ( BRAF mutated or WT with MLH1 methylation) and 99 (28%) familial (loss of MSH2 or MSH6, or loss MLH1 with BRAF WT and unmethylated MLH1) cases. A large proportion of dMMR sporadic cases were mutated for BRAF (n = 200; 80%). In pts treated with FOLFOX, the disease-free survival (DFS) was not statistically different by dMMR mechanism, while for pts treated with FOLFOX + cetuximab, the sporadic cases did worse than familial cases (DFS; adjusted (adj) HR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.02-7.08; P= 0.04). Considering the predictive value, a deleterious effect of adding cetuximab to FOLFOX was observed in sporadic (DFS; adjHR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.01-2.79; P= 0.04) but not in familial dMMR pts (interaction P value regarding treatment effect = 0.03). Furthermore, a non-significant trend to a deleterious effect of adding cetuximab to FOLFOX was observed in BRAF mutant (DFS; adjHR, 1.66; 95% CI, 0.95-2.92; P= 0.07) but not in BRAF WT pts. Conclusions: The addition of cetuximab to FOLFOX was associated with reduced DFS in patients with sporadic dMMR cases. Further studies including the methylator phenotype (CIMP) analysis are needed to validate these results. Clinical trial information: NCT00265811 and NCT00079274.