Citations

Abstract Introduction: Customized gene panel sequencing is an attractive approach to genomic tumor characterization in clinical care. Based on published MM exome data we developed a MM Mutation Panel (M3 P) that includes the most commonly mutated genes, actionable drug targets, genes targeted by current standard of care (SOC) therapies and which allows tracking of clonal evolution, copy number and sample purity. Methods and Material: M3 P (v3.0) covers 88 genes (1327 amplicons, 181kb). MM samples from 504 patients (pts) have been analyzed (corresponding germline in 81%) through collaborations between Mayo Clinic and Hospital-12-de-Octubre (Madrid, Spain), the DSMM and GMMG (Würzburg, Ulm, Freiburg and Heidelberg, Germany) and the HOVON trial groups (Rotterdam, The Netherlands). The investigated cohort includes 410 untreated pts (81%), which includes a high risk cohort of 72 pts with del17p, 25 paired samples with later follow up from the same cohort, and 94 relapsed patients, of which 50 were relapsed and refractory. Results: Overall coverage per mutation averaged >500x depth. We identified 945 variants (1.9 per pt) and in 83% of the pts a mutation was found. Clonal heterogeneity was assessed with mutations ranging from 3%-100% variant reads suggesting the presence of a significant number of subclones (e.g. 21% of mutations were in < 10% of reads). The mutation incidence was compared with and closely resembles the most recent MM comprehensive genomic data from the MMRF CoMMpass study: We compare here all pts sequenced by M3 P, untreated pts sequenced by M3 P and CoMMpass: KRAS (24%/23%/24%), NRAS (20%/20%/18%), DIS3 (13%/14%/10%), BRAF (9%/7%/6%), FAM46C (6%/6%/8%) and TRAF3 (6%/6%/7%). TP53 mutation incidence, however, was significantly increased in our cohort (14%/12%/4.2%), a difference explained by the inclusion of del17p (untreated) and relapsed refractory MM in panel sequenced pts, cohorts with elevated incidences of TP53 mutations (32% / 26% respectively). Potentially actionable targets include BRAF mutationsin 43 patients (9%), with druggable p.V600E in 19 or 5%, 8 pts (2%) with FGFR3 (p.R248C and p.G375C one patient each), p.R132 mutation in 4 out of 5 IDH1 (1%) and p.R172K IDH2 mutation in 1 of 3 (1%) pts. Mutations in the MAPK pathway (NRAS, KRAS, BRAF) were detected in 59% of pts, ranging from 36% untreated MM to 72% in refractory MM. Similarly, the CRBN/CUL4B/IKZF1/IKZF3/IRF4 pathway, important for IMiD function, harbored a significant enrichment of mutations in advanced disease (6% untreated vs 17% relapsed), including CRBN mutations (0.5% vs 7%). Nine of 17 IRF4 mutations were located at the p.K123R hotspot, with minor difference between early or late disease (1% vs 3%). Notably, in 8 of 9 pts with CRBN mutation and clinical information, all were unresponsive to IMiD therapy, supporting association of these mutations with resistance to IMiDs. Conversely, M3 P genes related to other SOC therapies, including NR3C1 (targeted by steroids) and 5 proteasome subunit genes (proteasome inhibitors), were rarely mutated across the cohorts not exceeding 1% mutation incidence for each gene. Significant differences in DIS3 and FAM46C mutation incidences were observed across cohorts: DIS3 mutations are more common in untreated pts with a 1.7 fold increased predominance (14% untreated and 8% treated). FAM46C has an expected incidence of 8% but was rarely mutated in untreated del17p high risk disease with only one of 100 patients harboring both mutations. The significance of this finding needs to be determined but implies a possible overlap in function. Finally we assessed impact on survival of the mutation variants identified in 142 untreated Mayo patients and found STAT3 mutations negatively impacting PFS (p=0.034) and OS (p=0.001). This gene is rarely mutated in MM (2% of the total cohort) thus the sample size was small and this finding needs further validation. Conclusion: We here describe 504 MM patients sequenced using the M3 P gene panel, which identified mutations in >80% of investigated patients, overlaps well with published whole exome sequence data and provides clinically relevant information. New findings were the high frequency of minor clones, the relative lack of overlap of del17 and FAM46C mutation, a higher frequency of DIS3 mutation at diagnosis compared to relapse, the prognostic significance of STAT3 mutation and the frequent presence of CRBN pathway mutation in drug resistant relapsed patients. Disclosures Sonneveld: Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Onyx, Karyopharm: Honoraria, Research Funding; novartis: Honoraria. Mai:Janssen-Cilag: Other: Travel Grant; Onyx: Other: Travel Grant; Mundipharma: Other: Travel Grant; Celgene: Other: Travel Grant. Goldschmidt:Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Knop:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Kull:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Martinez-Lopez:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyer Squibb: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Einsele:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Raab:Novartis: Research Funding. Stewart:Oncospire Inc.: Equity Ownership; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Abstract LBA-6 Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) patients who have become refractory to bortezomib (BORT) and refractory or otherwise ineligible for thalidomide or lenalidomide (LEN) have a poor prognosis, with a median overall survival (OS) of 9 months (Kumar. Leukemia. 2012). There is no standard treatment available for these patients. Pomalidomide (POM) is a novel immunomodulatory drug that has shown activity in LEN- and BORT-refractory patients (Vij. ASCO 2012). MM-003 is an open-label, multicenter, phase 3 trial designed to compare the efficacy and safety of POM + low-dose dexamethasone (LoDEX) vs high-dose dexamethasone (HiDEX) in a population of patients who are refractory to both LEN and BORT. Here we present the final progression-free survival (PFS) and interim OS analysis of MM-003. Methods: Eligible patients with primary refractory or relapsed and refractory disease were enrolled. All patients with documented disease progression during treatment or within 60 days of completing their last myeloma therapy (including ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of LEN and BORT either alone or in combination), were randomized 2:1 to receive either POM + LoDEX (arm A) or HiDEX alone (arm B). Patients progressing on HiDEX had the opportunity to receive POM in the companion trial, MM-003C. Patients in arm A received POM 4 mg on days 1–21 and DEX 40 mg (20 mg for patients > 75 years of age) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in a 28-day cycle. Patients in arm B received DEX 40 mg (20 mg for patients > 75 years of age) on days 1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 in a 28-day cycle. Treatment was continued until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. Patients were stratified by age (≤ 75 vs > 75 years), disease population (refractory vs refractory and relapsed vs refractory and intolerant [intolerant to BORT only]), and number of prior therapies (2 vs > 2). The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints included safety, OS, overall response rate (ORR; ≥ partial response) by IMWG and EBMT criteria, duration of response, time to progression, and quality of life. OS was to be tested only if PFS would be statistically significant; therefore, alpha was controlled at 0.05 2-sided for both PFS and OS. Results: The Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) reviewed the protocol-specified final analysis results. 455 patients were randomized from March 2011 to Sept 2012. 302 patients received POM + LoDEX, and 153 patients received HiDEX. At the time of analysis, 45% of patients in arm A and 25% of patients in arm B remained on study. The median number of prior therapies was 5 (range, 1–17). 72% of patients were refractory to both LEN and BORT. At the PFS final analysis, with a median follow-up of 18 weeks, PFS was significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX alone (median 15.7 vs 8.0 weeks; 267 total events; hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; P <.001). OS interim analysis was performed as planned; OS also was significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX alone (median not reached vs 34 weeks; 134 events; HR, 0.53; P<.001), crossing the prespecified O’brien-Fleming superiority boundary. This includes 45 pts who received POM after progressing on HiDEX. Median duration of treatment was 12.4 weeks in arm A and 8 weeks in arm B. Following DSMB review of the data, immediate crossover of arm B patients to arm A was recommended. Overall, 25% of patients in arm A and 38% in arm B died, with progressive disease and infections as the primary reasons. Frequent grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities included neutropenia (42% in arm A vs 15% in arm B), thrombocytopenia (21% vs 24%), and febrile neutropenia (7% vs 0%). Other toxicities (grade 3/4) were predominantly infections (24% vs 23%), hemorrhage (3% vs 5%), glucose intolerance (3% vs 7%), neuropathy (1% vs 1%), and venous thromboembolism (1% vs 0%). The primary reason for discontinuation was progressive disease: 35% arm A and 49% arm B. Complete results will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: POM + LoDEX significantly increased PFS and OS compared with HiDEX in patients who are refractory to LEN and BORT, a population with limited treatment options. The OS superiority boundary was crossed. Based on these data, POM + LoDEX should become the new standard of care in patients who have exhausted the novel agents, LEN and BORT. Disclosures: Dimopoulos: Celgene: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Pomalidomide is an investigational drug and is not approved for the treatment of patients with any condition. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Moreau:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Weisel:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Song:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Delforge:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; OrthoBiotech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Karlin:Celgene: Consultancy. Goldschmidt:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Yu:Celgene: Employment. Sternas:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jacques:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. San Miguel:Onyx: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Aims Options for the treatment of intra-articular ligament injuries are limited, and insufficient ligament reconstruction can cause painful joint instability, loss of function, and progressive development of degenerative arthritis. This study aimed to assess the capability of a biologically enhanced matrix material for ligament reconstruction to withstand tensile forces within the joint and enhance ligament regeneration needed to regain joint function. Materials and Methods A total of 18 New Zealand rabbits underwent bilateral anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by autograft, FiberTape, or FiberTape-augmented autograft. Primary outcomes were biomechanical assessment (n = 17), microCT (µCT) assessment (n = 12), histological evaluation (n = 12), and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) analysis (n = 6). Results At eight weeks, FiberTape alone or FiberTape-augmented autograft demonstrated increased biomechanical stability compared with autograft regarding ultimate load to failure (p = 0.035), elongation (p = 0.006), and energy absorption (p = 0.022). FiberTape-grafted samples also demonstrated increased bone mineral density in the bone tunnel (p = 0.039). Histological evaluation showed integration of all grafts in the bone tunnels by new bone formation, and limited signs of inflammation overall. A lack of prolonged inflammation in all samples was confirmed by quantification of inflammation biomarkers. However, no regeneration of ligament-like tissue was observed along the suture tape materials. Except for one autograft failure, no adverse events were detected. Conclusion Our results indicate that FiberTape increases the biomechanical performance of intra-articular ligament reconstructions in a verified rabbit model at eight weeks. Within this period, FiberTape did not adversely affect bone tunnel healing or invoke a prolonged elevation in inflammation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1238–1247.

Abstract Purpose: Predicting surgical outcome could improve individualizing treatment strategies for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. It has been suggested earlier that gene expression signatures (GES) might harbor the potential to predict surgical outcome. Experimental Design: Data derived from high-grade serous tumor tissue of FIGO stage IIIC/IV patients of AGO-OVAR11 trial were used to generate a transcriptome profiling. Previously identified molecular signatures were tested. A theoretical model was implemented to evaluate the impact of medically associated factors for residual disease (RD) on the performance of GES that predicts RD status. Results: A total of 266 patients met inclusion criteria, of those, 39.1% underwent complete resection. Previously reported GES did not predict RD in this cohort. Similarly, The Cancer Genome Atlas molecular subtypes, an independent de novo signature and the total gene expression dataset using all 21,000 genes were not able to predict RD status. Medical reasons for RD were identified as potential limiting factors that impact the ability to use GES to predict RD. In a center with high complete resection rates, a GES which would perfectly predict tumor biological RD would have a performance of only AUC 0.83, due to reasons other than tumor biology. Conclusions: Previously identified GES cannot be generalized. Medically associated factors for RD may be the main obstacle to predict surgical outcome in an all-comer population of patients with advanced ovarian cancer. If biomarkers derived from tumor tissue are used to predict outcome of patients with cancer, selection bias should be focused on to prevent overestimation of the power of such a biomarker. See related commentary by Handley and Sood, p. 9

Objective Antireflux surgery can be proposed in patients with GORD, especially when proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use leads to incomplete symptom improvement. However, to date, international consensus guidelines on the clinical criteria and additional technical examinations used in patient selection for antireflux surgery are lacking. We aimed at generating key recommendations in the selection of patients for antireflux surgery. Design We included 35 international experts (gastroenterologists, surgeons and physiologists) in a Delphi process and developed 37 statements that were revised by the Consensus Group, to start the Delphi process. Three voting rounds followed where each statement was presented with the evidence summary. The panel indicated the degree of agreement for the statement. When 80% of the Consensus Group agreed (A+/A) with a statement, this was defined as consensus. All votes were mutually anonymous. Results Patients with heartburn with a satisfactory response to PPIs, patients with a hiatal hernia (HH), patients with oesophagitis Los Angeles (LA) grade B or higher and patients with Barrett’s oesophagus are good candidates for antireflux surgery. An endoscopy prior to antireflux surgery is mandatory and a barium swallow should be performed in patients with suspicion of a HH or short oesophagus. Oesophageal manometry is mandatory to rule out major motility disorders. Finally, oesophageal pH (±impedance) monitoring of PPI is mandatory to select patients for antireflux surgery, if endoscopy is negative for unequivocal reflux oesophagitis. Conclusion With the ICARUS guidelines, we generated key recommendations for selection of patients for antireflux surgery.

AbstractObjectiveTo develop clinical practice guidelines for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in individuals at metabolic risk for developing these conditions.ConclusionsHealth care providers should incorporate regular screening and identification of individuals at metabolic risk (at higher risk for ASCVD and T2DM) with measurement of blood pressure, waist circumference, fasting lipid profile, and blood glucose. Individuals identified at metabolic risk should undergo 10-year global risk assessment for ASCVD or coronary heart disease to determine targets of therapy for reduction of apolipoprotein B–containing lipoproteins. Hypertension should be treated to targets outlined in this guideline. Individuals with prediabetes should be tested at least annually for progression to diabetes and referred to intensive diet and physical activity behavioral counseling programs. For the primary prevention of ASCVD and T2DM, the Writing Committee recommends lifestyle management be the first priority. Behavioral programs should include a heart-healthy dietary pattern and sodium restriction, as well as an active lifestyle with daily walking, limited sedentary time, and a structured program of physical activity, if appropriate. Individuals with excess weight should aim for loss of ≥5% of initial body weight in the first year. Behavior changes should be supported by a comprehensive program led by trained interventionists and reinforced by primary care providers. Pharmacological and medical therapy can be used in addition to lifestyle modification when recommended goals are not achieved.