Citations

Abstract BACKGROUND CC-115 is an oral, CNS-penetrant, selective inhibitor of mammalian target of rapamycin kinase (mTOR) and deoxyribonucleic acid-dependent protein kinase (DNA-PK). Both targets are important in glioblastoma; PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling is hyperactive in most glioblastomas, and DNA-PK is integral to repair of radiotherapy-mediated DNA damage. To investigate CC-115 in newly diagnosed glioblastoma and explore potential genomic biomarker associations, CC-115 was evaluated in the Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) trial, an adaptive platform trial designed to efficiently test experimental agents. METHODS Adults with newly diagnosed MGMT-unmethylated glioblastoma, with genomic data available, are eligible for this ongoing trial. Patients are adaptively randomized to one of several experimental arms or the control arm: standard radiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide. The primary endpoint is overall survival (OS). Patients randomized to CC-115 (10mg po BID) received it concurrently with radiotherapy and as adjuvant monotherapy. As the first in-human use of CC-115 with radiation, a safety lead-in 3 + 3 design was used. RESULTS Twelve patients were randomized to CC-115; seven patients had possible treatment-related CTCAE grade > 3 toxicity, including four pre-specified dose-limiting toxicities: liver function abnormality (n=1), hyperlipidemia (n=1), lipase elevation (n=1) and cerebral edema (n=1). There was no significant difference in progression-free survival (PFS, median 4.2 months [CC-115] vs. 5.2 months, p=0.9) or OS (median 10.1 months [CC-115] vs. 14.5 months, p=0.9) compared to the 50 patients randomized to the control arm. Based on early PFS results, randomization probability to CC-115 decreased from 25% to < 10% at time of the trial arm closure. CONCLUSION Concurrent and adjuvant CC-115 was associated with toxicity and failed to improve PFS or OS. The INSIGhT trial design allowed for more efficient testing of CC-115, decreasing patients and resources allocated to a therapy that was discontinued due to concerns about toxicity and unfavorable risk-to-benefit ratio.

Abstract BACKGROUND The cyclin D-CDK4/6-Rb pathway is activated in most glioblastomas. Abemaciclib is a potent CDK4/6 inhibitor with good brain penetration approved for ER/PR/HER2- breast cancer. In order to efficiently evaluate the potential impact of abemaciclib on overall survival (OS) in newly diagnosed glioblastoma and to simultaneously develop information regarding potential genomic biomarker associations, abemaciclib was included as an arm on the Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) trial. INSIGhT is a phase II platform trial using response adaptive randomization and deep genomic profiling to more efficiently test experimental agents in MGMT unmethylated glioblastoma and potentially accelerate identification of novel therapies for phase III testing. Initial randomization was equal between abemaciclib, control, and two other experimental arms but subsequent randomization was adapted based on efficacy as determined by progression-free survival (PFS). Ineffective arms were discontinued and new arms added by protocol amendment. We report preliminary results for the abemaciclib arm which has completed accrual. METHODS Patients with newly diagnosed MGMT-unmethylated glioblastoma were randomized to receive either radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide at standard doses or standard radiochemotherapy followed by adjuvant abemaciclib (150–200 mg orally BID) without temozolomide. Treatment continued until progression or development of unacceptable toxicities. The primary endpoint was OS. Association between abemaciclib efficacy and cyclin D-CDK4/6-Rb pathway genomic alterations was also investigated. RESULTS There were 123 patients (50 control; 73 treated with abemaciclib). Abemaciclib was generally well-tolerated with no new toxicity signals identified. PFS was significantly longer (p=0.03, logrank test) with abemaciclib (median 6.31 months 95% CI [5.29, 8.18]) compared to the control arm (5.16 months 95% CI [4.37, 6.28]). 28/50 control and 36/73 abemaciclib patients remain alive. CONCLUSION Preliminary analysis suggests that abemaciclib increases PFS compared to control. Updated toxicity, PFS and survival data and potential genomic biomarker associations will be presented.

Uveal melanoma is a rare form of melanoma with particularly poor outcomes in the metastatic setting. In contrast with cutaneous melanoma, uveal melanoma lacks BRAF mutations and demonstrates very low response rates to immune-checkpoint blockade. Our objectives were to study the transcriptomics of metastatic uveal melanoma with the intent of assessing gene pathways and potential molecular characteristics that might be nominated for further exploration as therapeutic targets. We initially analyzed transcriptional data from The Cancer Genome Atlas suggesting PI3K/mTOR and glycolysis as well as IL6 associating with poor survival. From tumor samples collected in a prospective phase II trial (A091201), we performed a transcriptional analysis of human metastatic uveal melanoma observing a novel role for epithelial-mesenchymal transition associating with survival. Specifically, we nominate and describe initial functional validation of neuropillin-1 from uveal melanoma cells as associated with poor survival and as a mediator of proliferation and migration for uveal melanoma in vitro. These results immediately nominate potential next steps in clinical research for patients with metastatic uveal melanoma.

Aims: To evaluate AMG 701, a BiTE® molecule binding BCMA on MM cells and CD3 on T cells, in RR MM (Amgen, NCT03287908); primary objective was to evaluate safety and tolerability and estimate a biologically active dose; secondary objectives were to characterize pharmacokinetics (PK), anti-myeloma activity per IMWG criteria, and response duration. Methods: Patients with MM RR or intolerant to ≥3 lines [proteasome inhibitor (PI), IMiD, anti-CD38 Ab as available] received AMG 701 IV infusions weekly in 4-week cycles until disease progression (PD). A 0.8-mg step dose was added prior to target doses ≥1.2 mg to prevent severe cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Target dose was achieved by day 8 or sooner with earlier escalation. Exclusion criteria included: solely extramedullary disease; prior allogeneic stem cell transplant (SCT) in the past 6 months; prior autologous SCT in the past 90 days; CNS involvement; prior anti-BCMA therapy. The first 3 cohorts (dose 5-45 μg) had 1 patient each, the next cohorts (0.14-1.2 mg) had 3-4 patients each, and subsequent cohorts (1.6-12 mg) were to have 3-10 patients each. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was measured by next-generation sequencing (NGS, ≤10-5 per IMWG) or flow cytometry (≤3×10-5). Results: As of July 2, 2020, 75 patients received AMG 701. Patients had a median age of 63 years, a median time since diagnosis of 5.9 years, and a median (range) of 6 (1-25) prior lines of therapy; 27% of patients had extramedullary disease, 83% prior SCT, and 93% prior anti-CD38 Ab; 68% were triple refractory to a PI, an IMiD, and an anti-CD38 Ab. Median (Q1, Q3) treatment duration was 6.1 (3.1, 15.3) weeks and median follow-up on treatment was 1.7 (1.0, 3.7) months. Patients discontinued drug for PD (n=47), AEs (adverse events, n=4, 3 CRS, 1 CMV / PCP pneumonia), withdrew consent (4), other therapy (1), investigator discretion (1), and CNS disease (1); 17 patients remain on AMG 701. The most common hematological AEs were anemia (43%), neutropenia (23%), and thrombocytopenia (20%). The most common non-hematological AEs were CRS (61%), diarrhea (31%), fatigue (25%), and fever (25%). CRS was mostly grade 1 (n=19) or 2 (n=21) per Lee Blood 2014 criteria. All grade 3 CRS (n=5, 7%) were assessed as dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs); all were reversible with corticosteroids and tocilizumab, with median duration of 2 days. CRS grade 3 drivers included transient LFT increases in 3 patients and hypoxia in 2 patients. Other DLTs were 1 case each of transient grade 3 atrial fibrillation, transient grade 3 acidosis, and grade 4 thrombocytopenia. Serious AEs (n=29, 39%) included infections (13), CRS (7), and asymptomatic pancreatic enzyme rise (2, no imaging changes, 1 treatment related). There were 4 deaths from AEs, none related to AMG 701 (2 cases of sepsis, 1 of retroperitoneal bleeding, and 1 of subdural hematoma). Reversible treatment-related neurotoxicity was seen in 6 patients, with median duration of 1 day, all grade 1-2, and associated with CRS in 4 patients. The response rate was 36% (16/45) at doses of 3-12 mg; at ≤1.6 mg (n=27), there was 1 response at 0.8 mg in a patient with low baseline soluble BCMA (sBCMA). With earlier dose escalation with 9 mg, the response rate was 83% (5/6, 3 PRs, 2 VGPRs), with 4/5 responders being triple refractory and 1 DLT of grade 3 CRS in this group. Across the study, responses included 4 stringent CRs (3 MRD-negative, 1 not yet tested), 1 MRD-negative CR, 6 VGPRs, and 6 PRs (Table). Median (Q1, Q3) time to response was 1.0 (1.0, 1.9) month, time to best response was 2.8 (1.0, 3.7) months, and response duration was 3.8 (1.9, 7.4) months, with maximum duration of 23 months; responses were ongoing at last assessment in 14/17 patients (Figure). MRD was tested in 4 patients (3 sCR, 1 CR) and all were negative (3 by NGS, 1 by flow); MRD negativity was ongoing at last observations up to 20 months later. AMG 701 exhibited a favorable PK profile in its target patient population of RR MM, with AMG 701 exposures increasing in a dose-related manner. Patient baseline sBCMA levels were identified as a determinant of AMG 701 free drug exposures; at higher doses, encouraging preliminary responses were seen even at the higher end of baseline sBCMA values. Summary: In this FIH study with ongoing dose escalation, AMG 701, an anti-BCMA BiTE® molecule, demonstrated a manageable safety profile, encouraging activity, and a favorable PK profile in patients with heavily pre-treated RR MM, supporting further evaluation of AMG 701. Disclosures Harrison: Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: wrt panobinostat; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Haemalogix: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Minnema:Amgen: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Lee:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Spencer:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; HaemaLogiX: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmamar: Research Funding. Kapoor:Cellectar: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Madduri:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Foundation Medicine: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Speaking Engagement, Speakers Bureau; Kinevant: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Speaking Engagement, Speakers Bureau; Legend: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Speaking Engagement, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Larsen:Janssen Oncology: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ailawadhi:Cellectar: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Phosplatin: Research Funding. Kaufman:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Tecnopharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi/Genyzme: Consultancy, Honoraria. Raab:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Heidelberg Pharma: Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hari:BMS: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Iida:AbbVie: Research Funding; Merck Sharpe Dohme: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin: Research Funding; Chugai: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ono: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Davies:Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: 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; Roche: 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; Adaptive Biotech: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lesley:Amgen Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Upreti:Amgen Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Yang:Amgen Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Sharma:Amgen Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Minella:Amgen Inc.: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Ended employment in the past 24 months; Beam Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Lentzsch:Mesoblast: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months; Janssen: Consultancy; Caelum Biosciences: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Magenta: Current equity holder in private company; Sanofi: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Celularity: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: AMG 701, a half-life extended BiTE® (bispecific T-cell engager) molecule is an investigational agent for multiple myeloma.

In 2013, the American Society of Hematology (ASH) published recommendations with Choosing Wisely to limit surveillance imaging in aggressive lymphoma. We studied surveillance imaging practice patterns for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) before and after the ASH Choosing Wisely campaign. We used OptumLabs Data Warehouse, a national insurance claims database, to retrospectively study imaging frequency in survivors of DLBCL from 2008 to 2016. Three time periods were defined: Period 1 (2008 to 2010), Period 2 (2011 to 2013), and Period 3 (2014 to 2016). One thousand four hundred seventy-two patients were included. Median follow up was approximately 2 years. During the first and second years of surveillance, imaging remained stable between Period 1 (years 1 and 2: 199 [91%] and 137 [83%], respectively) and Period 2 (years 1 and 2: 257 [88%] and 172 [77%], respectively; P = .38), but decreased in Period 3 (years 1 and 2: 315 [78%] and 83 [61%], respectively; P < .01). In a multivariable logistic regression, year after 2012 was a significant predictor of decreased overuse (more than two scans per year in the first year of surveillance; [odds ratio, 0.49 for 2013 v 2008; P = .02]). Our study demonstrated the rate of surveillance scans—both computed tomography and positron emission tomography imaging—in DLBCL decreased after the ASH Choosing Wisely campaign. Multiple factors, such as changes in recommendations, reimbursement, and provider knowledge base, may have all contributed and should be studied further.

AbstractWe studied 2,528 patients with upfront autologous haematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) for multiple myeloma (MM) from 2008–2017 to develop a prognostic model to predict outcomes. High‐risk cytogenetics included t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), del13q on karyotype, del17p, +1q or 1pdel. A Cox model identified factors prognostic of progression/relapse in a training subset (n = 1,246). A weighted score using these factors was assigned to a validation cohort (n = 774). Presence of high‐risk cytogenetics [hazard ratio, (HR) 1·68 (1·3–2·17)] and pre‐AHCT bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) ≥10% [1·68 (1·33–2·12)] were assigned 4 points each; albumin at diagnosis <3·5 g/dl [1·31 (1·07–1·61)] 2; standard risk cytogenetics 1, and no cytogenetics abnormality, BMPCs <10% at AHCT and albumin ≥3·5 g/dl at diagnosis 0 points each. A three‐category system with low risk (0–3), intermediate risk (4–8) and high risk (9–10) showed 3‐year progression‐free survival in the low vs. intermediate vs. high risk of 58% (95% CI: 52–63) vs. 49% (95% CI: 43–56) vs. 31% (95% CI: 12–51), P < 0.001 respectively, and 3‐year OS in low vs. intermediate vs. high risk of 88% (95% CI: 84–91) vs. 81% (95% CI: 76–86) vs. 64% (95% CI: 39–80); P < 0·001. Our prognostic scoring system can identify MM patients at risk for early relapse after AHCT.

Background Current adverse event reporting practices do not document longitudinal characteristics of adverse effects, and alternative methods are not easily interpretable and have not been employed by clinical trials. Introducing time parameters in the evaluation of safety that are comprehensive yet easily interpretable could allow for a better understanding of treatment quality. In this study, we developed and applied a novel adverse event reporting method based on longitudinal adverse event changes to aid describing, summarizing, and presenting adverse event profile. We termed it the “Adverse Event Load, Onset, and Maximum Grade” method. Methods We developed two adverse event summary metrics to complement the traditional maximum grade report. Onset time indicates the time period in which the maximum grade for a specific adverse event occurred and was defined as “early” (i.e. maximum grade happened for the first time before 6 weeks) or “late” (i.e. after the 6 th week). Adverse event load indicates the overall severity of a specific adverse event over the entire treatment. Higher adverse event load indicates a worse overall experience. These metrics can be calculated for adverse events with different maximum grades, in treatments with planned changes (e.g. dosage changes), using data sets with different number of adverse event data points between treatments (e.g. treatments with longer cycle lengths may have less adverse event data points) and on data sets with different adverse event data availability (e.g. cycle basis and patient-outcome reports). We tested the utility of this method using individual patient data from two major backbone therapies (“Irinotecan” and “Oxaliplatin”) from the N9741 trial available in the Fondation ARCAD database ( fondationarcad.org ). We investigated profiles of diarrhea, neutropenia/leukopenia, and nausea/vomiting. Results Our method provided additional information compared to traditional adverse event reports. For example, for nausea/vomiting, while patients in Irinotecan had a higher risk of experiencing maximum grade 3–4 (15.6% vs 7.6%, respectively; p < 0.001), patients in both groups experienced similar severity over time (adverse effect load = 0.102 and 0.096, respectively; p = 0.26), suggesting that patients in Oxaliplatin experienced a lower-grade but more persistent nausea/vomiting. For neutropenia/leukopenia, more patients in Irinotecan experienced their maximum grade for the first time early in the treatment compared to patients in Oxaliplatin (67.9% vs 41.7%; p < 0.001), regardless of maximum grade. Longitudinal information can help compare treatments or guide clinicians on choosing appropriate interventions for low-grade but persistent adverse event or early adverse event onset. Conclusion We developed an adverse event reporting method that provides clinically relevant information about treatment toxicity by incorporating two longitudinal adverse event metrics to the traditional maximum grade approach. Future research should establish clinical benchmarks for metrics included in this adverse event reporting method.

Abstract Background: Whether circulating polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) levels are associated with pancreatic cancer risk is uncertain. Mendelian randomization (MR) represents a study design using genetic instruments to better characterize the relationship between exposure and outcome. Methods: We utilized data from genome-wide association studies within the Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Consortium and Pancreatic Cancer Case–Control Consortium, involving approximately 9,269 cases and 12,530 controls of European descent, to evaluate associations between pancreatic cancer risk and genetically predicted plasma n-6 PUFA levels. Conventional MR analyses were performed using individual-level and summary-level data. Results: Using genetic instruments, we did not find evidence of associations between genetically predicted plasma n-6 PUFA levels and pancreatic cancer risk [estimates per one SD increase in each PUFA-specific weighted genetic score using summary statistics: linoleic acid odds ratio (OR) = 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.98–1.02; arachidonic acid OR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.99–1.01; and dihomo-gamma-linolenic acid OR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.87–1.02]. The OR estimates remained virtually unchanged after adjustment for covariates, using individual-level data or summary statistics, or stratification by age and sex. Conclusions: Our results suggest that variations of genetically determined plasma n-6 PUFA levels are not associated with pancreatic cancer risk. Impact: These results suggest that modifying n-6 PUFA levels through food sources or supplementation may not influence risk of pancreatic cancer.