Citations

Abstract Background Recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI) is an urgent public health threat associated with significant mortality and medical cost. Microbiota therapy is gaining acceptance as a strategy to reduce rCDI recurrence. We present the final 24-month analysis of clinical safety, efficacy, and microbiome restoration from a Phase 2 open-label trial of RBX2660 for prevention of CDI recurrence. Methods Participants with multi-recurrent CDI received <2 doses of RBX2660 delivered via enema 7 days apart in this multicenter, open-label Phase 2 study. Efficacy was defined as the absence of CDI recurrence through 56 days after the last dose and was compared with 8-week recurrence-free rates for a historical control cohort that received standard-of-care antibiotic therapy. Fisher exact test compared the proportion of treatment participants who were CDI-free by age and sex. Durability was defined as continued absence of CDI episodes beyond 8 weeks. Safety and durability assessments occurred at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. Participant stool samples were collected prior to and for up to 720 days after treatment, and microbiome changes were assessed by shallow shotgun sequencing. Results The efficacy of RBX2660 to prevent rCDI at 8 weeks (78.9%; 112/142) was higher than the CDI-free rate in the historical control group (30.7%, 23/75; P < 0.0001). Age and sex did not impact efficacy. Among participants who achieved treatment success at 8 weeks and were evaluable for long-term durability (n = 95), 8 experienced a new CDI episode by the 24-month follow-up for an overall durability of 91.6%. The safety profile was consistent with previous reports for RBX2660. In total, 503 stool samples from 110 treatment responders were analyzed. Within 7 days of treatment, the relative abundance of Bacteroidia and Clostridia remained shifted higher than pre-treatment levels while Gammaproteobacteria and Bacilli declined sharply after treatment, and these changes persisted to at least 24 months. Conclusion RBX2660, a microbiota-based drug, was safe and efficacious for preventing rCDI with clinical durability to 24 months after treatment, independent of age or sex, and RBX2660 durability associated with durable microbiome shifts from pre-treatment to a healthier composition. Disclosures Robert Orenstein, DO, Rebiotix Inc. (Advisor or Review Panel member), Sarah Mische, PhD, Rebiotix Inc. (Employee), Ken Blount, PhD, Rebiotix Inc. (Employee), Lindy Bancke, PharmD, Rebiotix Inc. (Employee), Xin Su, MD, MSci, Rebiotix Inc. (Employee), Dana Walsh, PhD, Rebiotix Inc. (Employee), Adam Harvey, PhD, Rebiotix Inc. (Employee), Carlos Gonzalez, MS, Rebiotix Inc. (Consultant), Dale N. Gerding, MD, Rebiotix Inc. (Board Member).

Abstract Introduction Cancer associated thrombosis is the second most common cause of mortality among patients with malignancy. While preventive low molecular weight heparin is effective in preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE), lack of agreement on risk stratification methods have precluded its widespread use. The most studied VTE prediction tool is the Khorana score, but it does not capitalize on the use of novel biomarkers. We aimed to evaluate the value of biomarkers in prediction of VTE among patients with active cancer receiving outpatient chemotherapy. Methods We prospectively collected pre-chemotherapy blood samples on adult patients with solid organ tumors. We excluded patients on anticoagulation and those unable or unwilling to consent. Along with demographics and cancer specific variables, potential novel predictors of VTE were selected a priori and included: coated platelets (CP), D dimer (DD), protein C (PC), fibrin monomers (FM), mean platelet volume (MPV), platelet microparticles (PMP). Type of cancer was grouped according to the Khorana score (Very high risk: Stomach, Pancreas; High risk: Lung, Gynecologic, Bladder, Testicular; Low/Moderate risk: all other sites). VTE events were adjudicated at 6 months of follow up. For all statistical analyses we used SAS 9.2 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). A p value of <0.05 was considered as statistically significant. We only performed univariate analysis at this point of our study due to the stage of recruitment and period of follow-up. Results We have recruited a total of 101 patients (mean + standard deviation age 59.7+11 years, 68% female), 20% of the 75 patients with complete follow up have developed a VTE. We found no significant association between the incidence of VTE and age, gender, or baseline Khorana score. The variables associated with incident VTE were: BMI (odds ratio [OR] 8.5 for BMI<25 kg/m2, p<0.001), type of cancer (OR 14.5 for very high risk compared to high risk, p<0.01) and protein C (OR 3.3 for protein C<110ug/mL the lowest tertile, p=0.05). The rest of the tested potential biomarkers did not have a strong association with incident VTE in the current analysis (Table). Twenty percent of the patients were on aspirin and none of them developed VTE compared to 23% of those not taking aspirin who developed VTE, (p=0.2). Conclusion Pre Chemotherapy level of Protein C is a potential biomarker for the incidence of VTE. We confirm that cancer type and BMI are predictors of cancer associated VTE. In addition, lower BMI is not usually recognized as a potential predictor of VTE in other prediction scores. We were underpowered to detect differences in the VTE incidence according to Khorana score. Finally, aspirin may have a role in outpatient cancer associated VTE prevention and deserves further investigation. Disclosures: Tafur: Stago Diagnostica: Research Funding. Rathbun:Stago Diagnostica: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Isolated brain parenchyma relapse as initial site of relapse is a rare complication of NHL and carries a poor prognosis. Few large series focus on treatment characteristics and outcomes of isolated brain parenchyma relapse of NHL. Methods: The IPCG conducted a retrospective review of patient and treatment characteristics and outcomes of this complication. Following initial diagnosis and treatment of NHL (1980–2004), cases with brain parenchyma relapse as initial relapse site, with no evidence of lymphoma elsewhere in the body at the time of brain relapse, were eligible. Cases with brain, spine or leptomeningeal involvement at NHL diagnosis were not eligible. Results: 113 cases were assembled from 13 investigators in 8 countries. Preliminary data summaries are: 94 (83%) cases had diffuse large B-cell NHL, 5 (4%) follicular lymphoma, 3 (3%) Burkitt’s lymphoma, other NHL subtypes (11) . Median age at NHL diagnosis was 61yrs (16–85 yrs). 55% were male. Median ECOG at NHL diagnosis was 1. Median time from NHL diagnosis to isolated brain relapse was 1.8 yrs (3 months–15.9 yrs). 76 (67%) relapsed in brain less than 3 yrs after NHL diagnosis. Symptoms at brain relapse included mental status changes in 37%, gait/balance disturbance (27%), motor/sensory symptoms (23%). Median ECOG at brain relapse was 2. Parenchyma relapse was documented by brain imaging plus biopsy in 54 (48%), or imaging without biopsy in 58 (52%); not reported (1). 53 (48%) cases had one brain lesion; 56 (50%) had two or more lesions; not reported (4). Site of relapse was cerebral hemispheres in 53 (48%) cases, deep brain structures (brain stem/cerebellum) in 30 (27%), cerebral hemispheres and deep brain structures in 23 (21%); not reported (7). At brain relapse, CSF was positive in 11 (10%) cases, negative in 56 (50%); not reported (46[40%]). Treatment for brain relapse was chemotherapy alone in 52 (46%) cases, WBRT alone in 34 (30%), chemotherapy followed by RT in 26 (23%), and brain surgery alone (1). 78 (69%) cases are deceased. Median survival from brain parenchyma relapse to death was 1.6 yrs (95% CI: 11 months–2.6 yrs). Effect of treatment type at brain relapse on survival, will be reported. Brain lymphoma was the cause of death in 49 (63%) cases; CNS toxicity was the cause in 6 (8%) cases. Conclusion: Though a rare relapse site, prospective studies are needed to improve understanding and outcomes of isolated brain parenchyma relapse of NHL.

Abstract Background: Lenalidomide (Revlimid®) in combination with dexamethasone was approved in the US on June 29, 2006 for the treatment of subjects with multiple myeloma who had received at least one prior therapy. On February 28, 2005 based upon a positive interim analysis of two pivotal placebo-controlled Phase III studies, an independent Data Safety Monitoring Board recommended the studies be unblinded and all subjects in both studies be given access to lenalidomide. In April 2005, the FDA in association with myeloma patient advocacy groups requested Celgene establish an expanded access program to make lenalidomide plus dexamethasone available to subjects with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma while the treatment was awaiting approval. Aim: To provide lenalidomide to multiple myeloma subjects with a high likelihood of benefit and to obtain additional safety data. Methods: Subjects with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma that received at least 1 prior therapy were eligible. Subjects received 25 mg lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone in 4-week cycles until disease progression was documented, study drug was discontinued, or lenalidomide became commercially available for this indication. Results: Between September 8, 2005 and July 25, 2006, approximately 1400 subjects in the US and Canada were enrolled into the study. A data snapshot taken March 17, 2006 demonstrated that 746 subjects had been enrolled, median age was 63 years, 60% were male, and 66.5% had Stage III disease. Median time on study was 7.1 weeks (0.1–24.4) and median daily dose was 20.5 mg. At least one Grade 3 or 4 adverse event was reported in 261 (35%) of the 746 subjects. Most commonly reported Grade 3–4 events were neutropenia (7.9% of subjects), thrombocytopenia (6.0%), fatigue (3.6%), anemia (3.5%), pneumonia (3.1%) and hyperglycemia (2.0%). These most commonly reported Grade 3–4 adverse events were the same as those found in the previous pivotal studies, however, their frequencies of occurrence were lower in the current study probably due to ongoing data collection and differences in study maturity. Likewise, the most commonly reported adverse events (all grades) were the same as those reported in the two previous pivotal studies. Conclusion: Preliminary data from this expanded access program in over 1400 subjects with multiple myeloma are consistent with results from two earlier Phase III pivotal studies. The EAP of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone in multiple myeloma represents a model of how government, advocacy groups, healthcare providers and industry can work together to quickly provide treatment to subjects in need while a clearly active treatment regimen is awaiting approval.

Abstract Introduction: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is an aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) comprising 3 molecular subtypes: germinal center B-cell (GCB), activated B-cell (ABC) and class III. ABC patients (pts) have a poor prognosis. The immunomodulatory drug lenalidomide (Len) produces durable responses in pts with aggressive NHL (Witzig 2011), with preferential activity reported in non-GCB DLBCL (Hernandez-Ilizaliturri 2011). Methods: This randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 2/3 study was conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of single-agent Len vs single-agent investigator’s choice (IC) in relapsed/refractory DLBCL pts who received ≥2 prior therapies, or were ineligible for stem cell transplantation or further combination chemotherapy. DLBCL subtype (GCB vs non-GCB) was determined by a central pathology lab using immunohistochemistry (IHC) per the Hans method (Hans 2004). Pts were stratified by subtype, then randomized 1:1 to receive Len (25 mg/day, 21 days of 28-day cycle) or IC (gemcitabine, rituximab, etoposide, or oxaliplatin) until progressive disease (PD), unacceptable toxicity, or voluntary withdrawal. In the event of radiologically confirmed PD, pts in the IC arm were allowed to cross over to Len. The primary endpoint for Stage 1 was overall response rate (ORR), as determined by an Independent Response Assessment Committee. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and subtype analysis using gene expression profiling (GEP) were exploratory endpoints. Concordance of GEP and IHC was evaluated from 3 separate laboratories. Results: IHC subtyping agreement rate among the 3 laboratories ranged from 87.5%-97.9%, and sensitivity of IHC to detect ABC or GCB subtypes vs GEP ranged from 92.3%-100.0%. By IHC, 102 DLBCL pts (GCB, n=48; non-GCB, n=54) were treated with ≥1 dose of Len or IC (modified intent-to-treat population) in Stage 1. In this heavily pretreated population, >90.0% of pts received ≥2 prior systemic chemotherapies; 25 pts in Len and 32 pts in IC received ≥3 prior systemic chemotherapy regimens. Median age was 65 y in the IC arm vs 69 y in the Len arm. Twenty-nine pts crossed over from IC to Len after confirmed PD. All pts, regardless of subtype or therapy group, experienced ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event, with neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia being the most common. Efficacy data are presented in the Table. Pts with GCB or non-GCB DLBCL (per IHC) treated with Len had similar ORR, but the data suggested greater improvements in PFS and OS with Len vs IC in the non-GCB pts. In an exploratory analysis of pts subtyped by GEP, ABC pts treated with Len vs IC-treated showed greater improvements in ORR, PFS, and OS compared with GCB pts. Prespecified criterion to advance to Stage 2 was a 2-sided 15% significance level in ORR in favor of Len based on IHC-defined subtype. The data did not fulfill this requirement, and Stage 2 was not opened. Conclusion: Len monotherapy showed clinical activity in heavily pretreated pts with DLBCL. The data suggest improved ORR, PFS, and OS with Len vs IC in the non-GCB population as defined by IHC, and the difference appears to be more pronounced in the ABC population as defined by GEP. Subtyping by GEP is warranted in further studies of Len in DLBCL. Abstract 628. Table 1.Table. Efficacy DataBy IHCBy GEPOverallGCBNon-GCBGCBABCLen(n=51)IC(n=51)Len(n=23)IC(n=25)Len(n=28)IC(n=26)Len(n=14)IC(n=16)Len(n=11)IC(n=16)ORR, % (95% CI)27.5 (15.9-41.7)11.8 (4.4-23.9) 26.1 (10.2-48.4)12.0 (2.5-31.2)28.6 (13.2-48.7)11.5 (2.4-30.2)21.4 (4.7-50.8)12.5 (1.6-38.3)45.5 (16.7-76.6)18.8 (4.0-45.6)P Value .079 .279 .179 .642 .206PFS, med wk (95% CI)13.6 (8.6-17.7)7.9 (6.3-9.0) 10.1 (8.3-22.3)29.0 (6.3-20.6)15.1 (8.3-24.1)7.1 (5.3-8.4)13.2 (8.3-24.9)7.1 (6.0-20.6)82.0 (7.3-NA)6.2 (4.3-10.1)P Value .041 .550 .021 .506 .105HR (95% CI) 0.64 (0.41-0.99) 0.82 (0.43-1.57) 0.50 (0.27-0.92) 0.77 (0.35-1.68) 0.44 (0.15-1.23)OS, med wk (95% CI)31.0 (16.6-41.3)24.6 (12.7-33.9) 30.0 (14.9-44.4)24.9 (13.7-58.3)32.3 (15.9-48.1)20.4 (10.3-33.9)30.0 (18.0-34.6)20.1 (13.7-36.9)108.4 (9.6-108.4)18.6 (6.6-48.0)P Value .673 .526 .253 .767 .144HR (95% CI) 0.91 (0.59-1.41) 1.23 (0.65-2.34) 0.70 (0.38-1.30) 1.12 (0.52-2.42) 0.47 (0.17-1.33) Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; med, median; NA, not applicable/not available. Disclosures Czuczman: Celgene: Consultancy. Off Label Use: This abstract describes a clinical trial of lenalidomide, which is an orally-available immunomodulatory agent under investigation for treating patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.. Davies:GlaxoSmithKlein: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Wagner-Johnston:Celgene: Research Funding. Gascoyne:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Salles:Pfizer: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Jansen: Honoraria; Hoffman La Roche: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria. Witzig:Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Zinzani:Mundipharma: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria; Millennium Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wright:Celgene: Research Funding. Staudt:Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Repici:Celgene: Employment. Song:Celgene: Employment. Manzke:Celgene: Employment.

Abstract Introduction: Systemic amyloidoses are a group of rare disorders characterized by the accumulation of misfolded proteins in tissue, resulting in the dysfunction of vital organs (eg, heart and kidneys). In amyloid light chain (AL) amyloidosis, the most common form of systemic amyloidosis, the amyloidogenic protein is a misfolded light chain (LC) or a fragment of an LC produced by clonal plasma cells. Current therapies used to treat AL amyloidosis limit LC production but do not directly target deposits underlying multiorgan failure. NEOD001, a monoclonal antibody, targets misfolded LC and is thought to neutralize circulating LC aggregates and to clear insoluble deposits. In an interim analysis of a phase 1/2 dose-escalation study in 27 patients with AL amyloidosis and persistent organ dysfunction (NCT01707264; EudraCT2012-002683-27), monthly infusions of NEOD001 were safe, well tolerated, and associated with renal and cardiac responses.1 Here we report updated results from the escalation phase and new results from the expansion phase of this study. Patients and Methods: Inclusion criteria for this trial were that patients complete ≥1 PCD treatment before enrollment, attain partial hematologic response (HR) or better to any previous therapy, and have persistent organ dysfunction. NEOD001 was administered intravenously every 28 days. During the dose-escalation phase, 27 patients received NEOD001 at 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, or 24 mg/kg in a 3+3 study design. An additional 42 patients with renal, cardiac, or peripheral nerve involvement were enrolled and treated (24 mg/kg) in the expansion phase. We assessed safety/tolerability, pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, cardiac and renal responses based on consensus criteria, and neuropathy responses using the Neuropathy Impairment Score-Lower Limb (NIS-LL). Results: The 42 additional patients enrolled in the expansion study included cohorts with renal (16 patients), cardiac (15 patients), and peripheral nerve (11 patients) involvement. In the overall population (n = 69), the median age was 60 years, and 61% of patients were men. Median (range) time since diagnosis was 2.8 (0.4-12.8) years, and 45% of patients underwent ≥3 previous plasma cell-directed regimens. The total number of infusions administered was 913 over a mean of 13.2 (range, 3-35) months. NEOD001 treatment was not associated with dose-limiting toxicities or discontinuations; patients did not develop antidrug antibodies or treatment-related serious adverse events. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events, regardless of relationship to study drug, were fatigue, upper respiratory tract infection, nausea, and diarrhea. In a best response analysis, 53% of cardiac-evaluable patients (N = 36) and 63% of renal-evaluable patients (N = 35) met respective criteria for organ response; no patients experienced disease progression. The median time to initial response was 2 months (cardiac) and 4 months (renal). After 9 months of treatment, 82% of patients with measurable peripheral neuropathy at baseline (N = 11) achieved a peripheral neuropathy response based on the NIS-LL score. Conclusions: Our interim results demonstrated that monthly NEOD001 infusions were safe and well tolerated and that organ response rates compared favorably with traditional chemotherapy. These updated results from the escalation phase and these new results from the expansion phase, including results from patients with peripheral nerve involvement, support the design of ongoing late-stage clinical studies. Antibody therapy may allow for effective treatment of patients with AL amyloidosis. Reference: 1. Gertz MA, Landau H, Comenzo RL, et al. First-in-human phase 1/2 study of NEOD001 in patients with light chain amyloidosis and persistent organ dysfunction. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(10):1097-1103. Disclosures Gertz: Prothena Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Alnylam Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Research to Practice: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Med Learning Group: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria; NCI Frederick: Honoraria; Sandoz Inc: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Ionis: Research Funding; Annexon Biosciences: Research Funding. Comenzo:Karyopharm: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy, Research Funding. Landau:Janssen: Consultancy; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx/Amgen: Research Funding. Sanchorawala:Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Prothena: Research Funding. Weiss:Prothena: Other: Travel, accommodations, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accommodations; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accommodations, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy. Zonder:BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy; Array Biopharma: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Walling:Stealth: Consultancy; BioMarin: Equity Ownership; Apex: Consultancy; Pharm-Olam: Consultancy; NuMedii: Consultancy; Amgen: Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties; Crown Bioscience: Consultancy; KaloBios: Consultancy; Exelixis: Consultancy; Newgen: Consultancy; Mateon (was Oxigene): Consultancy; Corcept: Consultancy; Prothena: Consultancy; Aduro: Consultancy; Codexis: Consultancy; Upsher Smith: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties. Kinney:Prothena: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Leadership. Koller:Prothena: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Travel, accommodations. Schenk:Prothena: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Leadership. Guthrie:Prothena: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Leadership. Liu:Prothena: Employment, Equity Ownership; Weston Brain Institute: Honoraria. Liedtke:Prothena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction:In amyloid light chain (AL) amyloidosis, the most common form of systemic amyloidosis, misfolded light chain (LC) or a fragment of an LC produced by clonal plasma cells accumulates in tissue, resulting in the dysfunction of vital organs and systems (eg, heart, kidneys, nervous system). Current therapies used to treat AL amyloidosis limit LC production but do not directly target deposits underlying multiorgan failure. Approximately 75% of patients do not achieve organ responses and have persistent organ dysfunction. Amyloid-directed therapies may stabilize and potentially reverse organ damage by specifically targeting existing LC aggregates. NEOD001, a monoclonal antibody, targets misfolded LC and is thought to neutralize circulating LC aggregates and to clear insoluble deposits. We have previously reported that monthly infusions of NEOD001 were safe and well tolerated. In addition, NEOD001 was associated with renal and cardiac responses. Here we analyzed the association between organ response and depth and time since last plasma cell-directed (PCD) treatment in the entire cohort of 69 patients enrolled in both the dose-escalation and the expansion phases of the phase 1/2 study. Methods: Inclusion criteria for this trial were that patients complete ≥1 PCD treatment before enrollment, attain partial hematologic response (HR) or better to any previous therapy, and have persistent organ dysfunction. NEOD001 was administered intravenously every 28 days. During the dose-escalation phase, 27 patients received NEOD001 at 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, or 24 mg/kg in a 3+3 study design. An additional 42 patients with renal, cardiac, or nerve involvement were enrolled and treated (24 mg/kg) in the expansion phase. We assessed cardiac and renal responses based on consensus criteria and neuropathy responses using the Neuropathy Impairment Score-Lower Limb (NIS-LL). For this analysis, we focused on the relationship between organ response after treatment with NEOD001 to the time since last or best HR and the depth of best and last HR. Results: A total of 69 patients were enrolled, 27 in the dose-escalation and 42 in the expansion cohorts. The entire population included 36 cardiac-evaluable patients, 35 renal-evaluable patients, and 11 patients evaluated for peripheral neuropathy; 39% were women, and the median age was 60 years. Time since diagnosis was 2.8 (0.4-12.8; median, range) years, and 45% of patients had undergone ≥3 previous PCD regimens. Of the patients evaluable for organ response, best response rates indicating organ response were observed in 53% of cardiac-evaluable patients (n = 19/36) and 63% of renal-evaluable patients (n = 22/35). NIS-LL scores indicated that 82% (n = 9/11) of patients met criteria for a peripheral neuropathy response to NEOD001. Cardiac and renal response rates for NEOD001-treated patients could not be attributed to previous PCD treatment regimens. For example, 37% of the NEOD001 cardiac responders and 35% of nonresponders received cyclophosphamide-bortezomib-dexamethasone. Similarly, for NEOD001 renal responders vs nonresponders, 27% vs 25% were treated with autologous stem cell transplantation and 27% vs 31% were treated with bortezomib-dexamethasone. There was no relationship between NEOD001 cardiac, renal, or peripheral nerve organ response and time since last chemotherapy, time since last or best HR, or depth of last or best HR. Finally, an equivalent percentage of evaluable patients experienced renal or cardiac response regardless of whether they had received their most recent PCD treatment ≤6 months or >6 months before NEOD001 initiation. The median time since last PCD treatment to the start of NEOD001 intervention for all patients was 6.5 (range, 0.6-85.8) months and the median time to first cardiac response after NEOD001 treatment for all cardiac responders was 2 months. NEOD001 treatment was safe and well tolerated. Conclusions: Patients treated with monthly NEOD001 infusions had high organ response rates that were independent of time since previous chemotherapy, depth of hematologic response, or predominant type of PCD treatment. Ongoing studies of NEOD001 include VITAL (phase 3 in patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis) and PRONTO (phase 2b in previously treated AL amyloidosis patients with persistent cardiac dysfunction). Disclosures Liedtke: Gilead: Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Comenzo:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy, Research Funding. Landau:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx/Amgen: Research Funding; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy. Sanchorawala:Prothena: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Weiss:Prothena: Other: Travel, accommodations, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accommodations; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accommodations, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy. Zonder:Prothena: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Array Biopharma: Consultancy. Walling:Corcept: Consultancy; Stealth: Consultancy; Codexis: Consultancy; Exelixis: Consultancy; Newgen: Consultancy; Mateon (was Oxigene): Consultancy; Apex: Consultancy; Aduro: Consultancy; Prothena: Consultancy; Upsher Smith: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties; KaloBios: Consultancy; NuMedii: Consultancy; Pharm-Olam: Consultancy; Crown Bioscience: Consultancy; BioMarin: Equity Ownership; Amgen: Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Kinney:Prothena: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Leadership. Koller:Prothena: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Travel, accommodations. Schenk:Prothena: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Leadership. Guthrie:Prothena: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Leadership. Liu:Prothena: Employment, Equity Ownership; Weston Brain Institute: Honoraria. Gertz:Annexon Biosciences: Research Funding; Ionis: Research Funding; Prothena Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Alnylam Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Research to Practice: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Med Learning Group: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria; NCI Frederick: Honoraria; Sandoz Inc: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria.

Abstract Introduction: Early palliative care (PC) integrated with oncology care improves quality of life (QOL), depression symptoms, illness understanding, and end-of-life (EOL) care for patients with advanced lung cancer. The aims of this trial are to compare the effect of delivering early integrated PC through telehealth versus in-person on patient and caregiver outcomes. We hypothesize that both modalities for delivering early PC would be equivalent for improving patient QOL, communication about EOL care preferences with their oncologist, and length of stay in hospice. Methods: For this comparative effectiveness trial, we will enroll and randomize 1250 adult patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), who are not being treated with curative intent, to receive either early integrated telehealth or in-person PC at 20 cancer centers throughout the United States. Patients may also invite a family caregiver to participate in the study. Patients and their caregivers in both study groups meet at least every four weeks with a PC clinician from within 12 weeks of patient diagnosis of advanced NSCLC until death. Participants complete measures of QOL, mood, and quality of communication with oncologists at baseline before randomization and at 12, 24, 36, and 48 weeks. Information on health care utilization, including length of stay in hospice, will be collected from patients' health records. To test equivalence in outcomes between study groups, we will compute analysis of covariance and mixed linear models, controlling for baseline scores and study site. Study Implementation and Stakeholder Engagement: To ensure that this comparative effectiveness trial and findings are as patient centered and meaningful as possible, we have incorporated a robust patient and stakeholder engagement plan. Our stakeholder partners include (1) patients/families, (2) PC clinicians, (3) telehealth experts and clinician users, (4) representatives from health care systems and medical insurance providers, and (5) health care policy makers and advocates. These stakeholders will inform and provide feedback about every phase of study implementation.