Citations

Introduction: VRD (bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone) and VCD (bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone) are the two most commonly used triplet induction regimens in transplant eligible patients with multiple myeloma (MM). VCD is commonly used in patients with renal dysfunction at diagnosis. Given the variable results seen in head to head comparison of these (or similar) regimens to date, no definitive conclusion can be made on whether they are equivalent. This large CIBMTR registry study compares the outcomes with VRD vs. VCD induction therapy in patients undergoing upfront autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Methods: Patients were included if they underwent upfront ASCT for MM from January 2013 to December 2018 within 6 months of diagnosis, received VRD or VCD induction therapy and achieved at least a partial response pre-transplant. Of 1,135 patients, 914 patients received VRD and 221 received VCD therapy. Cox proportional hazards models were created for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The following covariates were adjusted in the models: induction regimen (main effect), age, sex, race, performance score, hematopoietic cell transplant-comorbidity index (HCT-CI), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at diagnosis, immunoglobulin subtype, cytogenetics, ISS stage, response status at transplant, melphalan dose, and maintenance therapy. Results: As shown in Table 1, patients in the VRD and VCD cohorts had similar age at transplant, adjusted HCT-CI scores, and distribution of high-risk cytogenetics. Patients in the VCD group were more likely to have renal impairment and ISS stage III disease. An eGFR (mL/min/1.73m2) at diagnosis < 60 was seen in 26% of VRD patients vs. 48% of VCD patients. ISS stage III was seen in 17% vs. 34% of patients, respectively. Treatment and Response: Pre-transplant response in the VRD cohort was: complete response (CR)- 17%, very good partial response (VGPR)- 48% and partial response (PR)- 35%. Response in the VCD cohort was: CR- 17%, VGPR- 42% and PR- 41%. Conditioning dose was melphalan 200 mg/m2 in 80% of patients receiving VRD vs. 69% in the VCD group. Post-transplant response was at least VGPR in 74% vs. 75% of patients, respectively. Maintenance in the VRD group was: lenalidomide based (+/- bortezomib)- 80%, bortezomib based- 5%, other-3% and none- 12% of patients. In the VCD group, maintenance was: lenalidomide based- 63%, bortezomib based- 11%, other- 1% and none- 24%. Survival: Patients receiving VRD induction had superior outcomes compared to VCD induction with median PFS from transplant of 44.6 (38.0-55.8) months vs 34.1 (25.8-44.7) months, p 0.004 respectively. Median OS was not reached for either group, with 5-year OS 79 (74-83)% for VRD and 60 (50-69)% for VCD, p <0.001. Univariate PFS and OS outcomes by induction regimen and eGFR at diagnosis are shown in Table 2 and Figure 1. Multivariate analysis is shown in Table 3. After adjusting for prognostic factors, there was no statistically significant difference between the two induction regimens, with hazard ratio (HR) for PFS in the VCD vs VRD group being 1.22 (95% CI: 0.96-1.55, p=0.10). ISS stage, cytogenetics, disease status prior to transplant, and maintenance were independent prognostic factors for PFS. Similarly, on multivariate analysis for OS, there was no statistically significant difference in the two groups, with HR for OS in VCD vs VRD group being 1.33 (95% CI: 0.93-1.92, p=0.12). ISS stage, cytogenetics, disease status prior to transplant, and maintenance were independent prognostic factors for OS. Conclusions: In patients with MM undergoing upfront transplant after VRD or VCD induction, no difference in outcomes was seen based on the induction therapy received after adjusting for other prognostic factors. As several MM patients with renal dysfunction are started on VCD, it is reassuring to see that VCD was not associated with inferior PFS, likely due to the eventual transition to maintenance therapy in the majority due to subsequent improvement of renal function. The use of maintenance treatment was uniformly associated with superior outcomes. Disclosures Sidana: Janssen: Consultancy. Kumar:Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Novartis: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy. Giralt:Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Actinuum: Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; OMEROS: Research Funding; SPECTRUM Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; PFIZER: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jensenn: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TAKEDA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MILTENYI: Research Funding; JAZZ Pharmaceutical: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Qazilbash:Janssen: Research Funding; Bioclinica: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Angiocrine: Research Funding; Bioline: Research Funding. Shah:GSK, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi, BMS, CareDx, Kite, Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma, Teneobio, Poseida, Nektar: Research Funding. D'Souza:Janssen: Consultancy; Akcea: Consultancy; Imbrium: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Teneobio: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding.

Background. Risk factors, virological parameters, and outcomes associated with HHV-6 viremia in high-risk donor CMV-seropositive and recipient CMV-seronegative (D+R–) liver transplant recipients in the current era are incompletely defined. Methods. The study population consisted of patients in the preemptive therapy (PET) arm of a randomized, controlled trial of PET versus valganciclovir prophylaxis for CMV prevention in D+R– liver transplant recipients. Weekly blood samples through 100 d in the PET group were tested for HHV-6 viremia using a real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Assessments included virological characteristics and relationship with CMV, risk factors, and impact of HHV-6 viremia with outcomes through 12 mo posttransplant. Results. HHV-6 viremia at any level developed in 42% (40 of 96). Older patient age (P = 0.03), longer hospitalization (P = 0.015), and ICU stay at transplantation (P = 0.029) were significantly associated with high-grade viremia. Concurrent HHV-6 and CMV viremia was associated with earlier onset of HHV-6 viremia (P = 0.004), higher HHV-6 area under the curve (P = 0.043), and higher peak HHV-6 viral load (P = 0.006) versus HHV-6 viremia alone. High-grade viremia was independently associated with biopsy-proven rejection within 12 mo (P = 0.045) posttransplant. Conclusions. Among D+R– liver transplant recipients receiving valganciclovir as PET, high-grade HHV-6 viremia was associated with increased age and critical illness in ICU at time of transplant and was independently associated with allograft rejection.

Study Design. Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. Objective. To determine if the addition of L5-S1 interbody support in long fusion deformity constructs is associated with superior long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes. To compare the 5-year clinical and radiographic outcomes and complications between long fusion constructs with L5-S1 interbody support versus posterolateral fusion (PLF) alone. Summary of Background Data. Cadaveric biomechanical studies have suggested that an interbody fusion at L5-S1 is beneficial in long fusion constructs with sacropelvic fixation. However, there is limited data reflecting the superiority of interbody support augmentation in optimizing arthrodesis and deformity correction relative to PLF alone. Methods. Eighty-eight consecutive adults with spinal deformity who underwent at minimum T11-pelvis posterior pedicle screw instrumentation with 5-year follow-up were included. Two cohorts were compared based on technique used at the lumbosacral junction (L5-S1): (A) no interbody (PLF; n = 23), or (B) interbody support at L5-S1 (IB; n = 65). Radiographic measurements and clinical outcome measures were compared at multiple time points. Complications were recorded and compared. Results. No differences in baseline patient characteristics between cohorts. One nonunion occurred at L5-S1 in the PLF group (P = 0.091). Initial postop sagittal alignment was better in the IB group (PLF: 6.46 cm, IB: 2.48 cm, P = 0.007); however, this was not maintained over long-term follow-up. No significant differences in proximal junctional kyphosis (PLF: 7/23, IB: 9/65, P = 0.076). Proximal junctional failure was more frequent in the PLF group (PLF: 6/23, IB: 6/65, P = 0.043). No significant differences in complications were found. Both cohorts had improvement from baseline pain and functional scores. Conclusion. There is no absolute long-term advantage for lumbar interbody support in adult spinal deformity patients undergoing spinal arthrodesis to the pelvis. Level of Evidence: 3

A 71-year-old female was diagnosed with localized renal cell carcinoma in July 2008 with subsequent metastasis in 2012 to the right adrenal gland, lungs, and brain. Due to disease progression, she was started on pazopanib 800 mg daily in October 2012. In November 2016, the patient developed an ill-defined, red, 10 × 15 cm indurated plaque on the left lateral upper thigh with a discrete 3 cm firm tender tumor without ulceration. An incisional biopsy was performed and showed panniculitis with features resembling sclerosing lipogranuloma. Alternative causes including rheumatologic disease and trauma were ruled out. We report the first case of pazopanib-induced panniculitis. Key clinical and histopathological features include tender subcutaneous nodules, exclusion of other causes, and fatty microcysts within a densely sclerotic background on pathology. As targeted therapies are becoming increasingly common in the field of oncology, prompt identification and reporting of adverse reactions is critical for proper management.

Germ line mutations in H3F3A and H3F3B cause a previously unidentified neurodevelopmental syndrome.

Abstract Background While the presence left ventricular (LV) remodelling after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is known to worsen prognosis, the impact of progressive vs. stable LV remodelling on outcome has not been established. Purpose To investigate the impact of progressive LV remodelling on outcome in STEMI patients who were treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and optimal pharmacotherapy. Methods Baseline, 3-, 6- and 12-month echocardiograms were analysed. Early LV remodelling (ER) was defined as a ≥20% increase in LV end-diastolic volume (EDV) during the first 3 months post-STEMI, and mid-term remodelling (MTR) as ≥20% LVEDV change by 6 months. Progressive LV remodelling was defined according to spline curve analyses: ≥0% LVEDV increase by 6 months (i.e. further increase after 3 months) for ER, and ≥20% by 12 months (i.e. an additional increase after 6 months) for MTR. The impact of progressive LV remodelling on outcome was evaluated with a Log rank test. Results 589 STEMI patients (mean age 61±12 years, 78% male) who demonstrated LV remodelling in the first 6 months post-infarct, were analysed: 408 (69%) ER and 181 (31%) MTR. Progressive LV remodelling occurred in 146 (36%) ER and in 12 (7%) MTR. After a median follow-up of 90 (IQR 64–117) months, 39 (10%) ER were hospitalised for heart failure. 25 (14%) MTR remodellers died after a median follow-up of 86 (IQR 66–112) months. Progressive LV remodelling in ER led to a higher rate of heart failure hospitalisation (P=0.017 vs. non-progressive ER, Fig. 1A) but no mortality difference (P=0.10 vs. non-progressive ER). In contrast, MTR with progressive LV remodelling experienced worse survival (P=0.01 vs. non-progressive MTR, Fig. 1B) but no increase in heart failure hospitalisation (P=0.65 vs. non-progressive MTR). Conclusions Progressive LV remodelling causes an increased risk of heart failure in ER post-infarct, vs. higher mortality in MTR. These two patterns of progressive, post-infarct LV remodelling possibly represent different underlying pathophysiological mechanisms: i.e. evolution of true post-infarct remodelling in ER, vs. natural history of established heart failure in MTR. Figure 1 Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Background and objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented reliance on informal caregivers as one of the pillars of healthcare systems. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of life of informal caregivers during the COVID-19 epidemic in Serbia. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among informal caregivers during the COVID-19 epidemic in Serbia. Physical and mental quality of life was measured by the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey. Additional data included sociodemographic characteristics, caregiver and care recipient characteristics, and COVID-19 related concerns. The qualitative component was performed using focus groups and individual in-depth interviews. Results: Out of 112 informal caregivers enrolled, most were female (80%), and the average age was 51.1 ± 12.3 years. The majority was delivering care to one person, who was a family member, on a daily basis (86.4%, 92%, and 91.1%, respectively). In multiple regression models, significant predictors of caregivers’ physical health were delivering care to a family member and a higher level of care complexity, while significant predictors of caregivers’ mental health were a higher level of care complexity and increased concerns about self-health and the health of the person being cared for due to the COVID-19 epidemic. Conclusions: Informal caregivers are experiencing negative physical and mental health outcomes during the COVID-19 epidemic in Serbia.

Background: BCMA targeted immunotherapy has yielded promising results for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). TNB-383B is a BCMA x CD3 bispecific T-cell redirecting antibody incorporating a unique anti-CD3 moiety that preferentially activates effector over regulatory T-cells and uncouples cytokine release from anti-tumor activity, as well as 2 heavy-chain-only anti-BCMA moieties for a 2:1 tumor associated antigen to CD3 stoichiometry. Results from the ongoing phase 1 dose escalation and expansion First-in-Human (FIH) study of TNB-383B are presented (NCT03933735). Methods: Eligible patients have RRMM and have been exposed to at least 3 prior lines of therapy including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory drug, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. Patients have been treated with escalating doses of TNB-383B infused IV over 1-2 hours Q3W (without step-up dosing). The primary objectives are to determine the safety/tolerability and clinical pharmacology of TNB-383B and to identify the MTD/RP2D. The study used a 3+3 design for dose escalation, with additional patients enrolled on cleared dose levels. Patients on earlier dose cohorts were allowed to increase to the highest cleared dose with investigator consensus. Responses were assessed by IMWG criteria and Adverse Events (AEs) were graded according to CTCAE v5.0. Minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment was performed via NGS on bone marrow samples in patients achieving a complete response (CR). Results: As of 13 July 2020, 38 subjects have been dosed with TNB-383B (0.025 - 40 mg). Demographics and disease characteristics at study entry are summarized in Table 1. The most common Gr 3/4 AEs were anemia (6/38; 16%) and thrombocytopenia (5/38; 13%). The most common drug-related AEs were CRS (8/38; 21%) and headache (5/38; 13%). One case of Gr 2 CRS was observed at 0.075 mg; all other CRS events were seen at 5.4 mg and above. Cases of CRS were grade 1 (5/8) or 2 (3/8) and occurred only after the first dose of TNB-383B. All but 3 subjects were managed with fluids and acetaminophen (the other 3 received 1 dose each of tocilizumab). One DLT, Gr3 confusion that resolved within 6 hours without sequelae was seen at the 20 mg dose in an additional patient enrolled on this cohort. No IRRs were observed. Dose modification was necessary in 1 subject for Gr 3 neutropenia associated with CRS; the subject escalated to their full dose after tolerating subsequent doses without incident. 5 subjects died from their underlying disease during follow-up. 15 subjects discontinued treatment, all of them for progressive disease. Preliminary PK data support Q3W dosing of TNB-383B. Activity was observed in one patient each at 0.2 mg and 1.8 mg; at doses of 5.4 - 40 mg an ORR of 52% (12/23) was observed. Depth and duration of response are summarized in Table 2. Conclusions: TNB-383B is well tolerated at doses up to 40 mg, without the need for step/split dosing. A preliminary ORR of 52% (12/23) was observed at doses ≥ 5.4 mg, including deep (6 PR / 3 VGPR / 3 CR) and durable (up to 24 weeks) responses despite dosing only every 3 weeks. Enrollment into the dose escalation arm is ongoing; updated data will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Rodriguez: BMS, Takeda, Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. D'Souza:Amgen: Research Funding; Akcea: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Teneobio: Research Funding; Imbrium: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy. Shah:GSK, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi, BMS, CareDx, Kite, Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma, Teneobio, Poseida, Nektar: Research Funding. Voorhees:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Personal fees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Other: Personal fees; Novartis: Other: Personal fees; Celgene: Other: Personal fees; Janssen: Other: Personal fees; Oncopeptides: Other: Personal fees; TeneoBio: Other: Personal fees; Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health: Current Employment. Buelow:Teneobio, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company. Kumar:Karyopharm: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Novartis: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding.