Citations

Abstract PAC203 is a randomized dose-finding study of pacritinib, an oral JAK2/IRAK1 inhibitor, in patients with advanced myelofibrosis who are intolerant of or resistant to ruxolitinib. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to pacritinib 100 mg once per day, 100 mg twice per day, or 200 mg twice per day. Enhanced eligibility criteria, monitoring, and dose modifications were implemented to mitigate risk of cardiac and hemorrhagic events. Efficacy was based on ≥35% spleen volume response (SVR) and ≥50% reduction in the 7-component total symptom score (TSS) through week 24. Of 161 patients, 73% were intolerant of and 76% had become resistant to ruxolitinib; 50% met criteria for both. Severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count <50 × 103/μL) was present in 44%. SVR rates were highest with 200 mg twice per day (100 mg once per day, 0%; 100 mg twice per day, 1.8%; 200 mg twice per day, 9.3%), particularly among patients with baseline platelet counts <50 × 103/μL (17%; 4 of 24). Although TSS response rate was similar across doses (100 mg once per day, 7.7%; 100 mg twice per day, 7.3%; 200 mg twice per day, 7.4%), median percent reduction in TSS suggested a dose-response relationship (–3%, −16%, and −27%, respectively). Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling based on all available data showed greatest SVR and TSS reduction at 200 mg twice per day compared with lower doses. Common adverse events were gastrointestinal events, thrombocytopenia, and anemia. There was no excess of grade ≥3 hemorrhagic or cardiac events at 200 mg twice per day. Pacritinib 200 mg twice per day demonstrated clinical activity and an acceptable safety profile and was selected as the recommended dose for a pivotal phase 3 study in patients with myelofibrosis and severe thrombocytopenia. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03165734.

AbstractActivation of the P53 pathway through inhibition of MDM2 using nutlins has shown clinical promise in the treatment of solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. There is concern, however, that nutlin therapy might stimulate the emergence or expansion of TP53-mutated subclones. We recently published the results of a phase 1 trial of idasanutlin in patients with polycythemia vera (PV) that revealed tolerability and clinical activity. Here, we present data indicating that idasanutlin therapy is associated with expansion of TP53 mutant subclones. End-of-study sequencing of patients found that 5 patients in this trial harbored 12 TP53 mutations; however, only 1 patient had been previously identified as having a TP53 mutation at baseline. To identify the origin of these mutations, further analysis of raw sequencing data of baseline samples was performed and revealed that a subset of these mutations was present at baseline and expanded during treatment with idasanutlin. Follow-up samples were obtained from 4 of 5 patients in this cohort, and we observed that after cessation of idasanutlin, the variant allele frequency (VAF) of 8 of 9 TP53 mutations decreased. Furthermore, disease progression to myelofibrosis or myeloproliferative neoplasm blast phase was not observed in any of these patients after 19- to 32-month observation. These data suggest that idasanutlin treatment may promote transient TP53 mutant clonal expansion. A larger study geared toward high-resolution detection of low VAF mutations is required to explore whether patients acquire de novo TP53 mutations after idasanutlin therapy.

AbstractClinical decision-making is based on knowledge, expertise, and authority, with clinicians approving almost every intervention—the starting point for delivery of “All the right care, but only the right care,” an unachieved healthcare quality improvement goal. Unaided clinicians suffer from human cognitive limitations and biases when decisions are based only on their training, expertise, and experience. Electronic health records (EHRs) could improve healthcare with robust decision-support tools that reduce unwarranted variation of clinician decisions and actions. Current EHRs, focused on results review, documentation, and accounting, are awkward, time-consuming, and contribute to clinician stress and burnout. Decision-support tools could reduce clinician burden and enable replicable clinician decisions and actions that personalize patient care. Most current clinical decision-support tools or aids lack detail and neither reduce burden nor enable replicable actions. Clinicians must provide subjective interpretation and missing logic, thus introducing personal biases and mindless, unwarranted, variation from evidence-based practice. Replicability occurs when different clinicians, with the same patient information and context, come to the same decision and action. We propose a feasible subset of therapeutic decision-support tools based on credible clinical outcome evidence: computer protocols leading to replicable clinician actions (eActions). eActions enable different clinicians to make consistent decisions and actions when faced with the same patient input data. eActions embrace good everyday decision-making informed by evidence, experience, EHR data, and individual patient status. eActions can reduce unwarranted variation, increase quality of clinical care and research, reduce EHR noise, and could enable a learning healthcare system.

Background: Brugada syndrome (BrS) is characterized by the type 1 Brugada ECG pattern. Pathogenic rare variants in SCN5A (mutations) are identified in 20% of BrS families in whom incomplete penetrance and genotype-negative phenotype-positive individuals are observed. E1784K- SCN5A is the most common SCN5A mutation identified. We determined the association of a BrS genetic risk score (BrS-GRS) and SCN5A mutation type on BrS phenotype in BrS families with SCN5A mutations. Methods: Subjects with a spontaneous type 1 pattern or positive/negative drug challenge from cohorts harboring SCN5A mutations were recruited from 16 centers (n=312). Single nucleotide polymorphisms previously associated with BrS at genome-wide significance were studied in both cohorts: rs11708996, rs10428132, and rs9388451. An additive linear genetic model for the BrS-GRS was assumed (6 single nucleotide polymorphism risk alleles). Results: In the total population (n=312), BrS-GRS ≥4 risk alleles yielded an odds ratio of 4.15 for BrS phenotype ([95% CI, 1.45–11.85]; P =0.0078). Among SCN5A -positive individuals (n=258), BrS-GRS ≥4 risk alleles yielded an odds ratio of 2.35 ([95% CI, 0.89–6.22]; P =0.0846). In SCN5A -negative relatives (n=54), BrS-GRS ≥4 alleles yielded an odds ratio of 22.29 ([95% CI, 1.84–269.30]; P =0.0146). Among E1784K- SCN5A positive family members (n=79), hosting ≥4 risk alleles gave an odds ratio=5.12 ([95% CI, 1.93–13.62]; P =0.0011). Conclusions: Common genetic variation is associated with variable expressivity of BrS phenotype in SCN5A families, explaining in part incomplete penetrance and genotype-negative phenotype-positive individuals. SCN5A mutation genotype and a BrS-GRS associate with BrS phenotype, but the strength of association varies according to presence of a SCN5A mutation and severity of loss of function.

Introduction: Daratumumab (DARA) is a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody targeting CD38 with a direct on-tumor and immunomodulatory mechanism of action, and has been approved across lines of therapy for the treatment of multiple myeloma. The addition of DARA to standard-of-care (SoC) regimens, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (D-Rd) and bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (D-VMP), in the phase 3 MAIA and ALCYONE clinical studies reduced the risk of disease progression or death by ≥44%, nearly doubled the rate of complete response (CR) or better, and induced a >3-fold increase in MRD-negativity rates (10-5 sensitivity threshold) vs SoC alone in pts with TIE NDMM. In both MAIA and ALCYONE, MRD negativity was associated with longer progression-free survival (PFS), irrespective of trial treatments. MRD negativity provides an index of deep clinical response and may be a more robust evaluation of disease control if sustained over time. Here, we evaluate MRD negativity, including sustained MRD negativity, in pts with TIE NDMM from MAIA and ALCYONE and its association with PFS with longer follow-up. Methods: Pts with NDMM ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell transplantation due to age (≥65 years) or unacceptable coexisting conditions in MAIA and ALCYONE were randomized (1:1) to SoC ± DARA. Pts in MAIA received 28-day cycles of Rd (R: 25 mg PO on Days 1-21; d: 40 mg PO QW) ± DARA (16 mg/kg IV QW for Cycles 1-2, Q2W for Cycles 3-6, and Q4W thereafter). ALCYONE pts received up to nine 6-week cycles of VMP (V: 1.3 mg/m2 SC twice weekly during Weeks 1, 2, 4, and 5 of Cycle 1 and QW during Weeks 1, 2, 4, and 5 of Cycles 2-9; M: 9 mg/m2 PO on Days 1-4 of Cycles 1-9; and P: 60 mg/m2 PO on Days 1-4 of Cycles 1-9) ± DARA (16 mg/kg IV QW for Cycle 1, Q3W for Cycles 2-9, and Q4W for Cycles 10+). Study treatments continued until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. MRD was assessed in MAIA and ALCYONE in all pts who achieved a CR or stringent CR. For ≥CR pts, additional MRD assessments occurred at 12, 18, 24, and 30 months after the first dose in ALCYONE and at 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 48, and 60 months in MAIA. MRD was assessed via next-generation sequencing using the clonoSEQ® assay (v.2.0; Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA) at the 10-5 sensitivity threshold. Sustained MRD negativity was defined as the maintenance of MRD negativity confirmed ≥6 or ≥12 months apart with no MRD positive test in between and was evaluated in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Results: A total of 737 (D-Rd, n=368; Rd, n=369) pts in MAIA and 706 (D-VMP, n=350; VMP, n=356) pts in ALCYONE were randomized; median duration of follow-up was 36.4 months in MAIA and 40.1 months in ALCYONE. In both studies, DARA-based therapy improved MRD negativity vs SoC in the ITT population (D-Rd, 28.8% vs Rd, 9.2%, P<0.0001; D-VMP, 28.3% vs VMP, 7.0%, P<0.0001). MRD-negative pts had improved PFS vs MRD-positive pts in the ITT population, regardless of treatment arm. In a pooled analysis of pts from DARA (D-Rd/D-VMP) and SoC (Rd/VMP) treatment groups, MRD-negative pts had improved PFS vs pts who were MRD positive, irrespective of treatment arm. In general, baseline characteristics were comparable among pts in DARA and control treatment groups with sustained MRD negativity. A higher proportion of pts in the ITT populations of MAIA (D-Rd, n=368; Rd, n=369) and ALCYONE (D-VMP, n=350; VMP, n=356) achieved sustained MRD negativity with DARA-based therapy vs SoC for ≥6-months (D-Rd, 14.9% vs Rd, 4.3%, P<0.0001; D-VMP, 15.7% vs VMP, 4.5%, P<0.0001) and ≥12-months (D-Rd, 10.9% vs Rd, 2.4%; P<0.0001; D-VMP, 14.0% vs VMP, 2.8%, P<0.0001). PFS was prolonged in pts with sustained MRD negativity for ≥6-months and ≥12-months vs pts without sustained MRD negativity in the pooled ITT populations, regardless of treatment arm (Figure). Conclusions: DARA-based combination regimens induce higher rates of MRD-negativity and sustained MRD negativity in pts with TIE NDMM, which are associated with deep responses and improved PFS. Disclosures San-Miguel: Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Takeda, Sanofi, Roche, Abbvie, GlaxoSmithKline and Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Avet-Loiseau:Celgene and Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, and Janssen;: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Paiva:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; SkylineDx: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Adaptive: Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Cellectar: Other; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Novartis: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria. Dimopoulos:Beigene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Facon:Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, Roche, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides, BMS, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Mateos:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy; Pharmamar: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; EDOMundipharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Touzeau:Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jakubowiak:AbbVie, Amgen, BMS/Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive, Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria. Usmani:Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Other; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; BMS, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; SkylineDX: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cook:Karyopharm: Honoraria; Celgene, Janssen, Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Roche, Sanofi: Honoraria. Cavo:BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel accomodations, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel accomodations, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Quach:GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen Cilag: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Amgen, Celgene, karyopharm, GSK, Janssen Cilag, Sanofi.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen, sanofi, celgene, Karyopharm, GSK: Research Funding. Ukropec:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ramaswami:Janssen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Pei:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Sun:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Wang:Janssen: Current Employment. Krevvata:Janssen: Current Employment. DeAngelis:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Heuck:Christoph Heuck: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Van Rampelbergh:Janssen: Current Employment. Kudva:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Other: non-paid consultancy. Kobos:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Qi:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Johnson and Johnson: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Bahlis:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene and Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Introduction: Daratumumab (DARA) is a human, CD38-targeting, IgG1κ monoclonal antibody approved as monotherapy in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) and in combination with standard of care for RRMM and NDMM. The addition of DARA to standard-of-care regimens in phase 3 studies has consistently improved progression-free survival (PFS) and led to deep and durable responses, including higher rates of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity compared with standard of care. In the primary analysis of the phase 3 MAIA study (median follow-up, 28.0 mo), D-Rd vs Rd significantly improved PFS and MRD-negativity rates in transplant-ineligible NDMM (Facon T, N Engl J Med 2019). With longer follow-up (36.4 mo), D-Rd maintained a PFS benefit and deeper and more durable responses vs Rd alone (Bahlis N, Blood 2019. 134[Suppl 1]:1875). Here, we report updated efficacy and safety findings from MAIA after approximately 4 years of follow-up. Methods: Patients with NDMM ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation due to age ≥65 years or comorbidities were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive Rd ± DARA. Stratification factors included International Staging System stage (ISS [I vs II vs III]), region (North America vs other), and age (<75 vs ≥75 years). All patients received 28-day cycles of Rd (R: 25 mg orally once daily on Days 1-21; d: 40 mg orally on Days 1, 8, 15 and 22). In the D-Rd arm, DARA (16 mg/kg intravenously) was given weekly for Cycles 1-2, every 2 weeks in Cycles 3-6, and every 4 weeks thereafter. Patients were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity in both treatment arms. The primary endpoint was PFS. Key secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), MRD-negativity rate (10‒5 sensitivity, clonoSEQ® version 2.0), and safety. PFS on the next line of therapy (PFS2), defined as the time from randomization to progression on the next subsequent line of therapy or death, was also measured. Results: A total of 737 patients were randomized (D-Rd, n = 368; Rd, n = 369). Patient baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two treatment arms. Median (range) age was 73 (45-90) years, with 44% of patients ≥75 years of age. 27%, 43%, and 29% of all patients were ISS stage I, II, and III, respectively. Among 642 patients evaluable for FISH/karyotyping analysis, 86% had standard and 14% had high cytogenetic risk. After a median follow-up of 47.9 months, 176 (48%) and 273 (75%) patients discontinued study treatment in the D-Rd vs Rd groups, respectively, with 85 (23%) and 113 (31%) patients discontinuing treatment due to progressive disease. PFS remained improved for D-Rd vs Rd (median, not reached [NR] vs 34 mo; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.43-0.67; P<0.0001; Figure). The estimated 48-month PFS rate was 60% with D-Rd vs 38% with Rd. The PFS benefit of D-Rd in prespecified subgroups, including patients with high cytogenetic risk, was generally consistent with overall results. Adding DARA to Rd continued to result in deeper responses with higher rates of ≥CR and ≥very good partial response (VGPR; Table). Median duration of response among responders was NR with D-Rd vs 44 months with Rd. Median PFS2 was NR vs 51 months with D-Rd vs Rd, respectively (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.52-0.83; P=0.0005); follow up is ongoing. 107 (29%) patients in the D-Rd group and 132 (36%) in the Rd group have discontinued the study due to death. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; D-Rd/Rd) occurring in ≥10% of patients were neutropenia (53%/37%), pneumonia (18%/11%), anemia (16%/21%), lymphopenia (16%/11%), hypokalemia (12%/10%), leukopenia (11%/6%), and cataract (11%/10%); grade 3/4 infection rates were 40%/29%. The most common serious TEAE was pneumonia (17%/11%). 11% of patients in the D-Rd arm and 22% in the Rd arm discontinued treatment due to an adverse event. The complete updated data set will be presented at the meeting with additional efficacy endpoints, including MRD-negativity rate. Conclusion : After 48 months follow up, the addition of DARA to Rd continues to demonstrate a superior PFS benefit. More patients continued to have deeper and more durable responses with D-Rd vs Rd alone. No new safety concerns were observed with longer follow-up. These results continue to support the use of D-Rd in the first line of treatment for patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM. Disclosures Kumar: Sanofi: Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Novartis: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy. Facon:Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, Roche, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides, BMS, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Usmani:Abbvie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Other; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; SkylineDX: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Array Biopharma: Research Funding. Plesner:Janssen: Consultancy. Orlowski:Founder of Asylia Therapeutics, Inc., with associated patents and an equity interest, though this technology does not bear on the current submission.: Current equity holder in private company, Patents & Royalties; STATinMED Research: Consultancy; Laboratory research funding from BioTheryX, and clinical research funding from CARsgen Therapeutics, Celgene, Exelixis, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Amgen, Inc., AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, EcoR1 Capital LLC, Forma Therapeutics, Genzyme, GSK Biologicals, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Biotech, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Legend Biotech USA, Molecular Partners, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Touzeau:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding. Bahlis:BMS/Celgene and Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Goldschmidt:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product:, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Johns Hopkins University: Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product; Incyte: Research Funding; University Hospital Heidelberg, Internal Medicine V and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany: Current Employment; GlaxoSmithKline (GSK): Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Mundipharma GmbH: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product:, Research Funding; Dietmar-Hopp-Foundation: Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product:; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product:, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product:, Research Funding; Molecular Partners: Research Funding; Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD): Research Funding. O'Dwyer:Celgene: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); BMS: Research Funding; Carrick Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Janssen: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); AbbVie: Consultancy; ONK Therapeutics: Consultancy, Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Venner:Celgene, Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen, BMS/Celgene, Sanofi, Takeda, Amgen: Honoraria. Weisel:Adaptive: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hulin:Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, and Takeda: Honoraria. Karlin:GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, personal fees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, personal fees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, personal fees; Celgene: Other: Personal fees; Sanofi: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support. Preis:Janssen: Other: for factor XI inhibitor. Broyl:Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Amgen: Honoraria. Hansson:Amgen, Celgene, Takeda, Janssen Cilag: Consultancy. Krevvata:Janssen: Current Employment. Wang:Janssen: Current Employment. Van Rampelbergh:Janssen: Current Employment. Ukropec:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Uhlar:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kobos:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Perrot:Amgen, BMS/Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Background and study aims Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are increasingly used for drainage of walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON). Recent studies suggested greater adverse event (AE) rates with LAMS for WON. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of LAMS with double-pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) for endoscopic drainage of WON. The primary aim was to evaluate stent-related AEs. Methods In October 2019, we searched the Ovid (Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane) and Scopus databases for studies assessing a specific LAMS or DPPS for WON drainage conducted under EUS guidance. Safety outcomes were AE rates of bleeding, stent migration, perforation, and stent occlusion. Efficacy outcomes were WON resolution and number of procedures needed to achieve resolution. A subanalysis including non-EUS-guided cases was performed. Results Thirty studies including one randomized controlled trial (total 1,524 patients) were analyzed. LAMS were associated with similar bleeding (2.5 % vs. 4.6 %, P = 0.39) and perforation risk (0.5 % vs. 1.1 %, P = 0.35) compared to DPPS. WON resolution (87.4 % vs. 87.5 %, P = 0.99), number of procedures to achieve resolution (2.09 vs. 1.88, P = 0.72), stent migration (5.9 % vs. 6.8 %, P = 0.79), and stent occlusion (3.8 % vs. 5.2 %, P = 0.78) were similar for both groups. Inclusion of non-EUS-guided cases led to significantly higher DPPS bleeding and perforation rates. Conclusions LAMS and DPPS were associated with similar rates of AEs and WON resolution when limiting analysis to EUS-guided cases. Higher bleeding rates were seen in historical studies of DPPS without EUS guidance. Additional high-quality studies of WON treatment using consistent outcome definitions are needed.

AbstractThe phase 3 FIRST trial demonstrated significant improvement in progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with an immune‐stimulatory agent, lenalidomide, in combination with low‐dose dexamethasone until disease progression (Rd continuous) vs melphalan +prednisone + thalidomide (MPT) in transplant‐ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Rd continuous similarly extended PFS vs fixed‐duration Rd for 18 cycles (Rd18). Outcomes in the Canadian/US subgroup (104 patients per arm) are reported in this analysis. Rd continuous demonstrated a significant improvement in PFS vs MPT (median, 29.3 vs 20.2 months; HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.49‐0.97]; p = 0.03326) and an improvement vs Rd18 (median, 21.9 months). Median OS was 56.9 vs 46.8 months with Rd continuous vs MPT (p = 0.15346) and 59.5 months with Rd18. The overall response rate was higher with Rd continuous and Rd18 (78.8% and 79.8%) vs MPT (65.4%). In the 49.0%, 52.9%, and 29.8% of patients with at least very good partial response in the Rd continuous, Rd18, and MPT arms, respectively, the median PFS was 56.0, 30.9, and 40.2 months, respectively. The most common grade 3/4 treatment‐emergent adverse events were neutropenia (28.4%, 30.1%, and 52.0%), anemia (23.5%, 21.4%, and 23.5%), and infections (37.3%, 30.1%, and 24.5%) with Rd continuous, Rd18, and MPT, respectively. These results were consistent with those in the intent‐to‐treat population, confirming the benefit of Rd continuous vs MPT in the Canadian/US subgroup and supporting the role of Rd continuous as a standard of care for transplant‐ineligible patients with NDMM.

Abstract Comparative outcomes of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) for BCR-ABL1− myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) in blast phase (MPN-BP) vs de novo acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and AML with prior myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs; post-MDS AML), are unknown. Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database, we compared HCT outcomes in 177 MPN-BP patients with 4749 patients with de novo AML, and 1104 patients with post-MDS AML, using multivariate regression analysis in 2 separate comparisons. In a multivariate Cox model, no difference in overall survival (OS) or relapse was observed in patients with MPN-BP vs de novo AML with active leukemia at HCT. Patients with MPN-BP in remission had inferior OS in comparison with de novo AML in remission (hazard ratio [HR], 1.40 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.76]) due to higher relapse rate (HR, 2.18 [95% CI, 1.69-2.80]). MPN-BP patients had inferior OS (HR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.00-1.43]) and increased relapse (HR, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.31-1.96]) compared with post-MDS AML. Poor-risk cytogenetics were associated with increased relapse in both comparisons. Peripheral blood grafts were associated with decreased relapse in MPN-BP and post-MDS AML (HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.57-0.86]). Nonrelapse mortality (NRM) was similar between MPN-BP vs de novo AML, and MPN-BP vs post-MDS AML. Total-body irradiation–based myeloablative conditioning was associated with higher NRM in both comparisons. Survival of MPN-BP after HCT is inferior to de novo AML in remission and post-MDS AML due to increased relapse. Relapse-prevention strategies are required to optimize HCT outcomes in MPN-BP.

ABSTRACT Background There is only partial overlap in the genetic background of isolated rapid‐eye‐movement sleep behavior disorder (iRBD) and Parkinson's disease (PD). Objective To examine the role of autosomal dominant and recessive PD or atypical parkinsonism genes in the risk of iRBD. Methods Ten genes, comprising the recessive genes PRKN , DJ‐1 (PARK7) , PINK1 , VPS13C , ATP13A2 , FBXO7 , and PLA2G6 and the dominant genes LRRK2 , GCH1 , and VPS35 , were fully sequenced in 1039 iRBD patients and 1852 controls of European ancestry, followed by association tests. Results We found no association between rare heterozygous variants in the tested genes and risk of iRBD. Several homozygous and compound heterozygous carriers were identified, yet there was no overrepresentation in iRBD patients versus controls. Conclusion Our results do not support a major role for variants in these genes in the risk of iRBD. © 2020 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society