Citations

8044 Background: In the phase 3 MAIA study, adding DARA to Rd improved progression-free survival (primary endpoint), overall survival, duration of response, and PROs in transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM. We report a MAIA subgroup analysis of time to response, duration of response, and PROs. Methods: Transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM 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 in Cycles 1-2, Q2W in Cycles 3-6, and Q4W thereafter) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Secondary endpoints included time to response and duration of response. PROs were measured using the EORTC QLQ-C30, with treatment effects assessed via mixed-effects model with repeated measures. Results: In total, 368 pts were assigned to the D-Rd group and 369 pts to the Rd group; 162 (44%) D-Rd pts and 142 (38%) Rd pts had renal impairment (defined as baseline CrCl ≤60 mL/min). At a 56.2-mo median follow-up, median times to very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) and complete response or better (≥CR) were shorter with D-Rd vs Rd in the overall study population and in the subgroups of pts with and without renal impairment (Table). Among pts who achieved ≥CR or partial response or better (≥PR), higher proportions of D-Rd vs Rd pts had not experienced disease progression at 48 mo (Table). Among pts with renal impairment, greater improvements from baseline in pt-reported pain, fatigue, and nausea and vomiting symptom scores were observed with D-Rd vs Rd across most timepoints; a notably greater meaningful reduction in pain symptom score was seen with D-Rd vs Rd as early as Cycle 6 Day 1 (least squares mean change from baseline, −14.9 vs −7.0; P=0.0241). Analyses for additional pt subgroups will be presented. Conclusions: In transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM, D-Rd showed more rapid deep responses as well as more durable responses vs Rd, regardless of renal function. Improvements in pt-reported symptoms were generally greater with D-Rd vs Rd in pts with renal impairment. Our results support the use of D-Rd in transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM. Clinical trial information: NCT02252172. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background Patients with high-risk, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (HR-NDMM) who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) have limited first-line treatment options. Recent meta-analyses evaluating the impact of incorporating daratumumab in the backbone regimen on progression-free survival (PFS) have found mixed results in these patients. Materials and Methods A pooled analysis of patient-level data for ASCT-ineligible patients with HR-NDMM [ie, del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16)] from the MAIA and ALCYONE trials; stratified by study identifier and adjusting for cytogenetic abnormality subtype, baseline performance status, International Staging System stage, myeloma type, and renal impairment; was conducted. Impact of daratumumab on PFS and rates of complete response or better (≥CR), minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative CR, very good partial response or better (≥VGPR), and overall response (ORR) was compared to control. Results Among 101 patients in the daratumumab and 89 patients in the control cohort, median follow-up was 43.7 months. Daratumumab reduced the risk of progression or death by 41% (adjusted hazard ratio for PFS [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 0.59 [0.41-0.85]) versus control. At 36 months, the estimated proportion of patients who did not progress and were still alive was 41.3% in the daratumumab and 19.9% in the control cohort. Rates of ≥CR (41.6% vs. 22.5%), MRD-negative CR (24.8% vs. 5.6%), ≥VGPR (75.2% vs. 46.1%), and ORR (92.1% vs. 74.2%) were higher for daratumumab versus control. Conclusion These findings demonstrate that incorporation of daratumumab in frontline treatment regimens reduced the risk of progression or death and improved response rates among ASCT-ineligible HR-NDMM patients.

Abstract Introduction: The phase 3 MAIA study (NCT02252172) evaluated the addition of daratumumab (D) to lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in patients (pts) with transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). At a median follow-up of 56.2 months, D-Rd prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus Rd alone, despite almost half of the pts in the Rd arm who received subsequent therapy receiving a daratumumab-containing regimen as any subsequent line of therapy (Facon T, et al. Presented at: European Hematology Association 2021 Virtual Congress. Abstract LB1901). Approximately 20% to 50% of pts with MM have baseline renal impairment that can affect the choice and efficacy of therapy (Dimopoulos MA, et al. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2016;34[13]:1544-1557). Here, we report results from MAIA for D-Rd vs Rd in pts with impaired renal function based on lenalidomide starting dose at a median follow-up of 56.2 months. Methods: Pts with NDMM ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation due to age ≥65 years or comorbidities were randomized 1:1 to receive D-Rd or Rd. Pts in both arms received 28-day cycles of oral Rd (R: 25 mg [10 mg recommended if creatinine clearance (CrCl) was 30-50 mL/min] on Days 1-21; d: 40 mg [20 mg if aged >75 years or body-mass index <18.5 kg/m 2] on Days 1, 8, 15, 22). Pts in the D-Rd arm also received intravenous D (16 mg/kg once weekly for Cycles 1-2, once every 2 weeks for Cycles 3-6, and once every 4 weeks thereafter). Pts in both arms were treated until disease progression or unacceptable safety events. The primary endpoint was PFS, and a secondary endpoint was OS. Renal impairment was defined as a baseline CrCl of ≤60 mL/min. Results: 737 pts were randomized (D-Rd, n=368; Rd, n=369); 162 (44%) pts in the D-Rd arm and 142 (38%) pts in the Rd arm had renal impairment as defined. At a median follow-up of 56.2 months, in pts with renal impairment who received a lenalidomide starting dose of 25 mg (25 mg subgroup; D-Rd, n=60 [37%]; Rd, n=62 [44%]), a PFS and OS advantage was observed with D-Rd versus Rd (Table). In pts with renal impairment who received a lenalidomide starting dose of <25 mg (<25 mg subgroup; D-Rd, n=98 [60%]; Rd, n=75 [53%]), median PFS and OS were prolonged with D-Rd versus Rd (Table). Among pts in the 25 mg subgroup who died (D-Rd, n=12; Rd, n=29), disease progression was the primary cause of death in 6 (50%) pts in the D-Rd arm and 10 (34%) pts in the Rd arm. Among pts in the <25 mg subgroup who died (D-Rd, n=44; Rd, n=37), disease progression was the primary cause of death in 16 (36%) pts in the D-Rd arm and 11 (30%) pts in the Rd arm. Conclusion: After ~5 years of follow-up, D-Rd showed a PFS improvement versus Rd in transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM and renal impairment regardless of lenalidomide starting dose. An OS advantage for D-Rd versus Rd was observed in pts with renal impairment who received a lenalidomide starting dose of 25 mg; in pts with renal impairment who received a lenalidomide starting dose of <25 mg, median OS was prolonged for D-Rd versus Rd, but the OS benefit was less pronounced. Overall, among pts with renal impairment, PFS and OS benefits of D-Rd versus Rd were observed regardless of lenalidomide starting dose; however, dose recommendations per the lenalidomide prescribing information should be followed. Many transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM may not receive a second line of therapy; our results support the frontline use of D-Rd to provide prolonged disease control in transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM and renal impairment. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Usmani: Abbvie: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; EdoPharma: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; SkylineDX: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kumar: Novartis: Research Funding; KITE: 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; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; 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; Beigene: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Plesner: CSL Behring: Other: Advisor; Genentech: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding. Orlowski: Amgen, Inc., BioTheryX, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EcoR1 Capital LLC, Genzyme, GSK Biologicals, Janssen Biotech, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc., Neoleukin Corporation, Oncopeptides AB, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi-Aventis, and Takeda P: Consultancy, Honoraria; CARsgen Therapeutics, Celgene, Exelixis, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Other: Clinical research funding; Asylia Therapeutics, Inc., BioTheryX, Inc., and Heidelberg Pharma, AG.: Other: Laboratory research funding; Asylia Therapeutics, Inc.: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Patents & Royalties; Amgen, Inc., BioTheryX, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Forma Therapeutics, Genzyme, GSK Biologicals, Janssen Biotech, Juno Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc., Kite Pharma, Neoleukin Corporation, Oncopeptides AB, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, I: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau: Abbvie: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene BMS: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria. Bahlis: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria. Nahi: XNK Therapeutics AB: Consultancy. Hulin: Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; abbvie: Honoraria. Quach: GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen/Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; CSL: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Antengene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Goldschmidt: Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Dietmar-Hopp-Foundation: Other: Grant; Mundipharma: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Molecular Partners: Research Funding; Johns Hopkins University: Other: Grant; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Incyte: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding. O'Dwyer: ONK Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy. Perrot: Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: 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; BMS Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria. Venner: Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding. Weisel: Novartis: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy; Roche: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: 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, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria. Raje: Celgene, Amgen, Bluebird Bio, Janssen, Caribou, and BMS: Other. Macro: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel accomodation, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgen/BMS: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel accomodation, Research Funding. Leleu: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Carsgen Therapeutics Ltd: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Non-financial support. Pei: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Van Rampelbergh: Janssen: Current Employment. Tromp: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Delioukina: Janssen: Current Employment.

Abstract In patients with transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), daratumumab reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 44% in MAIA (daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone [D-Rd]) and 58% in ALCYONE (daratumumab/bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone [D-VMP]). Minimal residual disease (MRD) is a sensitive measure of disease and response to therapy. MRD-negativity status and durability were assessed in MAIA and ALCYONE. MRD assessments using next-generation sequencing (10−5) occurred for patients achieving complete response (CR) or better and after at least CR at 12, 18, 24, and 30 months from the first dose. Progression-free survival (PFS) by MRD status and sustained MRD negativity lasting ≥6 and ≥12 months were analyzed in the intent-to-treat population and among patients achieving at least CR. In MAIA (D-Rd, n = 368; lenalidomide and dexamethasone [Rd], n = 369) and ALCYONE (D-VMP, n = 350; bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone [VMP], n = 356), the median duration of follow-up was 36.4 and 40.1 months, respectively. MRD-negative status and sustained MRD negativity lasting ≥6 and ≥12 months were associated with improved PFS, regardless of treatment group. However, daratumumab-based therapy improved rates of MRD negativity lasting ≥6 months (D-Rd, 14.9% vs Rd, 4.3%; D-VMP, 15.7% vs VMP, 4.5%) and ≥12 months (D-Rd, 10.9% vs Rd, 2.4%; D-VMP, 14.0% vs VMP, 2.8%), both of which translated to improved PFS vs control groups. In a pooled analysis, patients who were MRD negative had improved PFS vs patients who were MRD positive. Patients with NDMM who achieved MRD-negative status or sustained MRD negativity had deep remission and improved clinical outcomes. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02252172 (MAIA) and #NCT02195479 (ALCYONE).

Abstract Despite the well-established role of recurrent gene fusions as oncogenic drivers, current practices for characterizing and interpreting gene fusion events in clinical testing and in biomedical literature are inconsistent. From the conceptual definition of gene fusions to the salient elements that characterize these alterations, a lack of community-driven standards for the curation of gene fusions has resulted in a disparate landscape of fusion representations and supporting tools. Consequently, the evidence-based clinical evaluation of gene fusions requires extensive expert review for accurate interpretation of observed gene fusions with respect to putative evidence from biomedical literature. Furthermore, the lack of these standards inhibits the interoperability of tools, resources, and pipelines - impeding data sharing and downstream utility.To address these challenges, a cross-consortia initiative between the Variant Interpretation for Cancer Consortium and ClinGen was formed to develop a standard operating procedure (SOP) for the curation of gene fusions. The SOP is under development by an international and diverse set of experts in the representation, detection, and clinical interpretation of gene fusions. Participating stakeholders across academic, government, and industry sectors showcased challenges and solutions, and participated in community surveys and discussions to define and develop the SOP for this diverse class of alterations.An initial result of this effort was the precise molecular definition of genomic events and features constituting gene fusions. We distinguish these from similar but distinct classes of structural alterations through clinically-relevant examples. Next, we discuss our findings on community practices around the description and evaluation of gene fusions. We provide our recommendations for characterization and representation of gene fusions from these practices, and compare these recommendations to existing variant representation standards and formats (e.g. HGVS variant nomenclature). We also discuss the concurrent application of formats for standardized human- and machine-readable representations of gene fusion events.We conclude with discussion of the salient elements to enable rapid, scalable, and consistent evaluation of fusions curated from the biomedical literature. Recommendations are provided for the standardized capture of these elements to enable both intuitive and precise characterization of this diverse class of alterations in clinical reporting and literature. In summary, we provide a clinical-practice driven framework and nomenclature for gene fusions, including recommendations for human readability, computational precision, and data integrity within the SOP. This work is a substantial advancement towards standardized communication, investigation, and sharing of gene fusion data across clinical and research domains and specialties. Citation Format: Alex H. Wagner, Ioannis S. Vlachos, Dmitriy Sonkin, Panieh Terraf, Chimene Kesserwan, Andrea Sboner, Thomas Coard, Christian Reich, Deborah I. Ritter, Peter Horak, Ying S. Zou, Anna Tanska, Aaron M. Berlin, Anna Lu, Daniel Cameron, Heather E. Williams, Wan-Hsin Lin, Gokce Toruner, Arpad Danos, Jason Saliba, Huiling Xu, Xinjie Xu, Georgina Ryland, Michele Ceccarelli, Liying Zhang, Sarah Rapisardo, Catherine Rehder, Xuelu Liu, Aparna Pallavajjala, Nicole Park, Laveniya Satgunaseelan, Kristy Lee, Jie Liu, Obi Griffith, Robert R. Freimuth, Albrecht Stenzinger, Linda B. Baughn, Michael Baudis, Jennifer Lee, Marilyn Li, Angshumoy Roy, Gordana Raca. A standard operating procedure for the curation of gene fusions [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr 449.

Abstract Childhood cancers are driven by unique profiles of somatic genetic alterations, with a significant contribution from predisposing germline variants. Understanding the genomic landscape of pediatric cancers is complicated by their rarity, the heterogeneity of variation within a given disease, and the complex forms of structural variation they contain. Variants in childhood disease may differ from those in adult versions of the same cancer type, or may have different clinical significance. Currently, pediatric variants are underrepresented in cancer variant databases, and an urgent need exists for their publicly available expert curation. To address this, the Pediatric Cancer Taskforce (PCT) was formed within the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Somatic Cancer Clinical Domain Working Group (CDWG) (https://www.clinicalgenome.org/working-groups/somatic/). The PCT is a multi-institutional group of 39 members with broad experience in childhood cancer and variant curation, whose work consists of standardization and classification of genetic variants in pediatric cancers. The CIViC knowledgebase (www.civicdb.org) is a freely available resource for Clinical Interpretation of Variants in Cancer, which leverages public curation and expert moderation to address the problem of annotating the large volume of clinically actionable cancer variants. PCT curators work together with PCT expert members and the CIViC team on variant curation, and have submitted over 230 Evidence Items and over 10 Assertions to CIViC. To further address issues specific to pediatric curation, the PCT is working with CIViC to develop new pediatric-specific CIViC features and modifications of the data model that will aid in pediatric curation. A pediatric user interface, as well as representation of large scale structural and copy number variation are being developed for version two of CIViC, expected to be released in 1-2 years, which will enable curation of a new class of structural variants often encountered in pediatric cancer. A novel standard operating procedure for childhood cancer curation in CIViC is being developed by PCT experts, curators and the CIViC team. This SOP will cover topics including curation of structural variants, as well as pediatric-specific variant tiering guidelines which take into account the sparse nature of evidence in pediatric cases. A companion resource, CIViCmine (http://bionlp.bcgsc.ca/civicmine/), will be further developed to incorporate pediatric data. These and other joint efforts of the PCT and CIViC will significantly enhance pediatric variant representation for public use, to support the care of children with cancer. Citation Format: Arpad Danos, Wan-Hsin Lin, Jason Saliba, Angshumoy Roy, Alanna J. Church, Shruti Rao, Deborah Ritter, Kilannin Krysiak, Alex Wagner, Erica Barnell, Lana Sheta, Adam Coffman, Susanna Kiwala, Joshua F. McMichael, Laura Corson, Kevin Fisher, Heather E. Williams, Matthew Hiemenz, Katherine A. Janeway, Jianling Ji, Kesserwan A. Chimene, Laura Fuqua, Lisa Dyer, Huiling Xu, Jeffrey Jean, Laveniya Satgunaseelan, Liying Zhang, Ted W. Laetsch, Donald W. Parsons, Ryan Schmidt, Lynn M. Schriml, Kristen L. Sund, Shashikant Kulkarni, Subha Madhavan, Xinjie Xu, Rashmi Kanagal-Shamana, Marian Harris, Yasmine Akkari, Nurit Paz Yacov, Panieh Terraf, Malachi Griffith, Obi L. Griffith, Gordana Raca. Advancing knowledgebase representation of pediatric cancer variants through ClinGen/CIViC collaboration [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr 210.