Citations

AbstractBackgroundTo date, 10 patients with GTPase Regulator Associated with Focal Adhesion Kinase 1/Rho GTPase Activating Protein 26‐Immunoglobulin (GRAF1/ARHGAP26‐IgG) associated neurological disorders have been described, most with ataxia.ObjectiveTo report the clinical, oncological, and radiological associations of GRAF1 autoantibodies.MethodsWe identified 17 patients whose serum and/or cerebrospinal fluid IgG was confirmed to target GRAF1/ARHGAP26‐IgG by both tissue‐based immunofluorescence and transfected cell‐based assay. Clinical information was available on 14 patients.ResultsThe median age at neurological symptom onset was 51 years, and 8 (47%) were men. The predominant clinical features were subacute progressive cerebellar ataxia (13) or peripheral neuropathy (2). Magnetic resonance imaging brain (7 available) showed cerebellar atrophy (4, 1 also cerebrum and brainstem atrophy). Of 7 cerebrospinal fluids available for testing, 5 showed pleocytosis with oligoclonal bands in 3. Squamous cell carcinoma was observed in 3 patients (head and neck [2], lung [1]).ConclusionGTPase Regulator Associated with Focal Adhesion Kinase 1 autoimmunity manifests commonly with subacute ataxia and cerebellar degeneration with a potential association with squamous cell carcinoma. Peripheral neuropathy may also be encountered. Cases in this series responded poorly to immunotherapy.

Although checkpoint inhibitors have been approved in multiple cancers, they are still under investigation in soft tissue sarcoma (STS). We conducted a retrospective review to report the safety, efficacy, and prognostic factors related to checkpoint inhibitors in STS. A sequential cohort of metastatic STS patients from four institutions treated with checkpoint inhibitors was assembled. Logistic and Cox regression models were applied to determine the effect of patient characteristics, prior treatment, and baseline factors on achieving the best overall response of complete response (CR), partial response (PR), or stable disease (SD) as determined by the treating physician. Eighty-eight patients with two median prior therapies received checkpoint inhibitors. Treatments included pembrolizumab in 47, nivolumab in 6, ipilimumab in 1, combination ipilimumab/nivolumab in 27, and other combination immunotherapies in 7 patients. Immunotherapy was discontinued in 54 patients—72.2% for progression, 16.7% for toxicity, and 11.1% for other reasons. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.1 months and median overall survival was 19.1 months. One patient with undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS) achieved a CR, while 20 patients had a PR, including 7 UPS, 9 leiomyosarcoma (LMS), and 1 each with alveolar soft part sarcoma, fibroblastic sarcoma, sclerosing epithelioid fibrosarcoma, and myxofibrosarcoma. Forty-five percent (9 of 20) of LMS patients achieved a PR. Twenty-eight patients had SD. Our results confirm the activity and safety of anti-PD-1 therapy in metastatic STS. A notable response rate was observed in UPS and LMS subtypes. This study expands the knowledge base beyond what is currently available from clinical trials involving checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic STS.

e24086 Background: Nasal vestibulitis has been infrequently described as a side effect of cancer-directed therapy; however, a preliminary study reported that 71% of patients undergoing taxane chemotherapy experienced nasal vestibulitis symptoms. This natural history trial describes the incidence, characteristics, and severity of nasal vestibulitis symptoms among patients undergoing paclitaxel, docetaxel, and non-taxane chemotherapy. Methods: Eligible participants who reported baseline (prior to starting chemotherapy) nasal symptoms ≤ 2 on a 10-point scale were enrolled in this trial upon initiation of a new treatment regimen, involving paclitaxel or docetaxel, or non-taxane chemotherapy. Participants completed nasal symptom logs each time they received a dose of therapy until either the regimen was stopped or four months had passed. The proportion of patients reporting new nasal symptoms was estimated within each cohort with the 95% exact confidence interval (CI). A cumulative incidence model was utilized to quantify the incidence of treatment-emergent nasal symptoms within each cohort, while controlling for age, sex, smoking history, and history of asthma or allergies. Results: Thirty-five participants received paclitaxel, 21 received docetaxel, and 25 received other types of chemotherapy. 86.4% of participants were female, mean age was 60.2 ± 11.2 years; 93.8% of participants completed 2 or more surveys. A higher percentage of participants in the paclitaxel cohort experienced new nasal vestibulitis symptoms than participants in the other two cohorts. The percentage (95% CI) of participants with nasal symptoms, for patients receiving paclitaxel, docetaxel, and non-taxane chemotherapy were 74.3% (56.7%, 87.5%), 47.6% (25.7%, 70.2%), and 44.0% (24.4%, 65.1%), respectively. Epistaxis was reported by 60% of participants in the paclitaxel cohort. Paclitaxel-receiving participants also reported nasal dryness (48.6%), scabbing (40.0%), and pain (20.0%). Nearly half of participants reported moderate symptoms (4-7 out of a 10-point scale), with 8.6% reporting symptoms as severe (8-10 on a 10-point scale). Conclusions: Nasal vestibulitis is a common side effect of chemotherapy, especially paclitaxel chemotherapy.

8049 Background: Our group has demonstrated that combinations of epigenetic modifiers produce potent synergy in pre-clinical models of PTCL and induce the expression of cancer testis antigen, suggesting a role in the addition of the immune-checkpoint inhibitor, pembrolizumab. Methods: This is a phase 1b study of pembrolizumab combined with pralatrexate alone (Arm A), with pralatrexate + decitabine (Arm B), or decitabine alone (Arm C) in patients with relapsed and refractory PTCL and CTCL. A standard 3+3 dose-escalation is applied in the triplet Arm (Arm B) while in the doublet Arms (A and C) de-escalation is applied in case of toxicity. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies are ongoing. Results: We treated a total of 12 patients with 4 patients in each Arm. All patients that received at least one dose of drug were evaluable for toxicity. There was a dose limiting toxicity (DLT) in each arm including prolonged grade 3 thrombocytopenia (Arm A), febrile neutropenia (Arm B), grade 3 hyponatremia, and rash (Arm C). There were no treatment-related deaths. Six patients out of 12 were evaluable for response at the time of this analysis. One patient achieved a complete remission, 2 had partial remission, 1 had stable disease, and 2 experienced progression of disease. Interestingly, all of the responses were seen in the triple combination of pralatrexate, decitabine, and pembrolizumab. Table summarizes the patient characteristics, toxicities, and response rates. Conclusions: These preliminary clinical data suggest that the integration of pembrolizumab on an epigenetic backbone is safe and demonstrates encouraging responses in patient with PTCL and CTCL. Clinical trial information: 03240211 . [Table: see text]

Abstract Rationale Escalation of the Zevalin dose is limited by hematologic toxicity associated with marrow B-cells ± tumor cells. Rituxan treatment before Zevalin may reverse marrow infiltration with malignant and normal B-cells allowing an increase in the dosage of Zevalin with enhanced radiation delivery to lymphoma tumor sites. Since NHL is radiation sensitive, a substantial increase in radiation dose delivered should increase the ORR and CR rates. Design Low-grade follicular/transformed NHL patients receive 4 weekly dose of Rituxan (375mg/m2) before the corresponding Zevalin dose. Bilateral bone marrow biopsies/aspirates as well as biodistribution and dosimetry studies using 111In-2B8 were obtained before and after Rituxan. The trial was schedule to escalate the Zevalin dose (from 0.4 to 0.7 mCi/Kg). After completion of the 0.4 mCi/kg cohort an additional cohort of Rituxan sensitive patients using 0.3 mCi/kg was completed. Safety, pharmacokinetics, dosimetry and preliminary responses are presented. Results 5 pts were enrolled in the 0.4mCi/kg cohort and 6 pts in the 0.3 mCi/kg cohort. In the 10 Rituxan sensitive patients the plasma T ½ and the AUC of 111In-2B8 increased after the administration of Rituxan, with a reduction in the plasma clearance (T½ from 45 ± 4.5 hours to 54 ± 1.9 hours, AUC from 60 ± 10 hrs/μCi/ml to 85 ± 14 hrs/μCi/ml, and the clearance from 1.4 ± 0.3 ml/hrs/kg to 0.9 ± 0.2 ml/hrs/kg). Dosimetry showed no differences in the radiation-absorbed dose for major normal organs (whole body, liver, kidneys) except for the spleen in which a reduction was observed in 7 out of 10 patients. The radiation-absorbed dose to the marrow increased after Rituxan; from 3.6 rads/mCi to 4.28 rads/mCi. In the 0.4 mCi/kg cohort 3 out of 4 evaluable patients for response had a complete response, and 1 patient had progression documented at initial evaluation six weeks post-Zevalin (patient refractory to previous Rituxan). No non-hematological toxicity was observed. One patient had a grade 4 thrombocytopenia, 3 patients had grade 3 thrombocytopenia, and 4 patients had grade 4 WBC and ANC. All patients recovered within two weeks after the nadir. Two out of 6 patients treated in the 0.3 mCi/kg cohort had complete response by physical evaluation, and 4 had partial response; no early progressions were seen in this cohort. No non-hematological toxicity was observed. Only one patient had a grade 4 WBC and ANC, and 2 patients had a grade 3; 3 patients had grade 3 thrombocytopenia; all patients recovered. Conclusions The administration of high doses of Rituxan before Zevalin prolongs the circulation time of the radiolabeled antibody and increases the bone marrow exposure to the radioisotope. Additionally, the increased amount of the radiolabeled antibody available after Rituxan therapy with the prolonged circulation time may explain the unusual high complete response rate observed in this small number of patients despite extensive chemotherapy failures. Although this is very provocative data, the number of patients is very limited to generate a strong conclusion. The trial continues at this time.

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have demonstrated the clinical activity of the mTOR inhibitor RAD001 in low- grade lymphomas. Our preclinical studies demonstrated activity of mTOR inhibitors in Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia (WM) cell lines and patient samples. This phase II study aimed to determine safety and activity of the oral mTOR inhibitor RAD001 (Novartis Pharmaceutical, MA) in patients with relapsed or refractory WM. METHODS: Patients who had at least one previous therapy for WM, and who had symptomatic relapsed or refractory disease were eligible. NCI CTCAE v3.0 was used for toxicity assessment. All patients received daily RAD001 at 10 mg. A cycle was considered 28 days. Patients were allowed to stay on therapy until progression of disease or excessive toxicity. This study was conducted in a collaborative effort between Dana Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) and Mayo Clinic College of Medicine. Here, we report the data on the patients accrued at DFCI. RESULTS: 19 pts (15 men and 4 women) have been treated to date. All patients had symptomatic disease and required therapy. The median number of lines of prior treatment was 3 (range 1 – 5) including included rituximab, nucleoside analogues (fludarabine or 2-CDA), combination chemotherapy (e.g. CHOP, CVP), chloramucil, and bortezomib. The median IgM at baseline was 3330 mg/dL (range 1010– 7410). The median follow on RAD001 was 8 months (range 3 – 22 months). Eighteen pts are currently evaluable for response. Best responses to RAD001 after 2 cycles using IgM monoclonal protein were as follows: partial remission in 8 (44%), minimal response in 5 (28%). Progressive disease occurred in 4 (22%) and stable disease occurred in 1 (6%). The overall response rate (PR+MR) was 72%. The median duration of response has not been reached (3–22+ months). Patients tolerated therapy well without significant toxicities. Grade 3 and 4 toxicities included grade 4 thrombocytopenia in 1 patient, grade 3 pneumonia in 1 patient, grade 3 hyperglycemia in 1 patient and grade 3 mucositis in 1 patient. Other adverse events of grade 2 or lower included nail cracking, mucositis, diarrhea, and fatigue. Attributable toxicities otherwise proved manageable with appropriate supportive care, and RAD001 was generally well tolerated. One patient enrolled on the study withdrew consent and changed to hospice care within 3 weeks of therapy, and passed away due to disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the oral RAD001 single agent RAD001 in patients with relapsed or refractory WM was welltolerated and demonstrated significant activity achieving an overall response rate in 72% of patients. Future studies of combination of this agent with rituximab and bortezomib are currently being planned.

Objective: This study sought to understand the patients’ perspective of what contributes to an absence of discussions of sexual orientation (SO), gender identity (GI), and sexual health in cancer care. Methods: Patients were recruited from oncology, gynecology, and a gender transition clinic to participate in semistructured interviews, which were analyzed with qualitative methods. Results: A total of 25 patients were interviewed, shedding light on 2 themes. The first was that these conversations are important but infrequent. One patient explained, “…. we know people who have had sex changes…[they] would have appreciated that question.” In response to whether sexual health was ever brought up, one patient responded, “No doctor ever has.” Patients described unaddressed issues: “There have been times, you know, we’ve wondered if it was okay to make love.” The second theme consisted of 4 pragmatic, patient-provided points to facilitate discussions: (1) implementation of a scale of 1 to 10 (with 10 being comfortable) to first gauge patients’ comfort in talking about SO, GI, and sexual health; (2) having the health-care provider explore the topic again over-time; (3) making sure the health-care provider is comfortable, as such comfort appears to enhance the patient’s comfort (“I have a doctor here, a female doctor, who just matter of fact will ask if I get erections and so on because of the medication she’s giving me);” and (4) eliminating euphemisms (one patient stated, “I don’t know what you mean by ‘sexual health’.”). Conclusion: Oncology health-care providers have a unique opportunity and responsibility to address SO, GI, and sexual health.