Citations

Abstract Background Polycythemia vera (PV) is a clonal myeloproliferative disorder characterized by erythrocytosis, splenomegaly and a frequently burdensome symptom profile. Despite current guidelines of aspirin, phlebotomy, and selective cytoreduction, many patients have inadequately controlled PV-related symptoms and/or disease features. We performed a comparison of PV symptom burden/disease feature phenotypes to understand unmet needs in current medical management. Methods Data was collected prospectively amongst an international cohort of PV patients including symptom burden, demographics, and disease features. Subgroups were identified who had previously failed hydroxyurea (PV-HU), required ongoing phlebotomy (PV-P), had palpable splenomegaly (PV-S), or had all 3 features (PV-HUPS). Control groups were derived from the remaining PV patients lacking the specified subgroup trait; patients in whom the trait status was unknown were excluded from each respective control group. All participants completed the MPN specific symptom burden questionnaire (MPN-SAF TSS (MPN-10 – Table 1)) and had no prior history of splenectomy. Surveyed symptoms on the MPN-10 included the patient's perceptions of common MPN-related symptoms and overall quality of life (QOL) on a 0 (absent) to 10 (worst imaginable) scale. PV risk scores were calculated using the 2013 criteria (Leukemia 2013). Comparison of symptoms between groups employed t-tests. Results Patient Demographics and Disease Features Between Phenotypic Groups A total of 1334 PV patients completed the MPN-10, and were assigned to categories of PV-HU (499 [37%]), PV-P (646 [48%]), PV-S (369, [28%]), and PV-HUPS (148 [12%]). The demographics between these groups were similar (comparable age (median range 60-63), PV risk scores (mean risk range: Low 16.4-23.7%; Intermediate 31.4%-36.6%; High 42.8%-47%). Mean hemoglobin was similar among PV subgroups (range 14.4-14.9); PV-HUPS had a higher mean WBC count (20.3 g/dL vs. 8.8-11.8 g/dL) and platelet count (703.5 x 10(9)/L vs. 327.5-462.8 x 10(9)/L), and disease duration (11.5 years vs. 6.4-8.8 years). Prior thrombosis was most common in PV-S patients (28.5% vs. 21.8-25.2%) and prior hemorrhage was most common in PV-HUPS patients (23.8% vs. 13.7-15.8%). Symptom Burden The MPN-10 scores of each problematic PV phenotype (HU, P, S, HUPS) were compared to the remainder of the PV cohort lacking the trait (PV-control; Table 1). Both individual symptom scores and TSS were highest for PV-HUPS patients (mean TSS 32.5 vs. 27.7-29.2). All problematic PV subgroups demonstrated significant differences for individual symptoms and TSS compared to PV-control. Comparing "problematic" subgroup responses, PV-HU patients described more inactivity whereas PV-S patients described more early satiety and pruritus. No statistical differences were noted in PV-HU, PV-P and PV-HUPS patient responses to MPN-10 items of "fever" and "weight loss". Discussion PV patients who have either failed HU, are undergoing phlebotomy and/or have splenomegaly exhibit moderate to severe symptomatology and demonstrate unmet medical need for management. As evidenced in this study, considerable overlap in symptomatology exists in PV-HU, PV-P, PV-S and PV-HUPS. Current randomized trials of JAK inhibitors have demonstrated benefits in a PV-HUPS phenotype. This data suggests that PV patients with any evidence of inadequate control (PV-HU, P, or S) have similarly unmet needs and may be candidates for clinical trials, intensification of medical therapy or perhaps JAK inhibitor therapy. Disclosures Kiladjian: Shire Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Zweegman:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Besses:Shire Pharmaceuticals: honoraria for educational lectures Other. Birgegard:Shire Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Etienne:Novartis, BMS, Pfizer, Ariad: Honoraria. Roy:Merck: Peg-Interferon provided for academic clinical trial in CML Other. te Boekhorst:Novartis: Consultancy. Griesshammer:Novartis: Honoraria; Shire: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Mesa:Incyte Corporation, CTI, NPS Pharma, Inc., Gilead Science Inc., Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Lenalidomide-based therapies are a standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible MM. Daratumumab (DARA) is a human, CD38-targeted, IgG1κ monoclonal antibody which has single-agent activity in heavily pretreated MM patients. As previously reported in 3 phase 3 studies, the addition of DARA to standards of care in both relapsed refractory (D-Rd, DARA plus bortezomib and dexamethasone [D-Vd]) or transplant-ineligible NDMM (DARA plus bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone [D-VMP]) resulted in a ≥50% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death (Palumbo A, et al. N Engl J Med 2016;375:754-766; Dimopoulos MA, et al. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1319-1331; Mateos MV, et al. N Engl J Med 2018;378:518-528). Of these, the POLLUX study with D-Rd showed the greatest benefit with a 63% reduction in risk of disease progression or death in patients with MM who had at least one prior line of therapy. Based on the efficacy and tolerable safety profile of D-Rd, we conducted a phase 3 study (MAIA) to evaluate D-Rd vs Rd in transplant-ineligible NDMM. Here we report the prespecified interim analysis of the MAIA study. Methods Patients ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation due to age ≥65 years or comorbidities were randomized 1:1 to Rd ± DARA. Stratification was based on International Staging System stage (ISS [I, II, III]), region (North America vs other), and age (<75 vs ≥75 years). All patients received 28-day cycles of treatment with Rd ± DARA. R: 25 mg (oral) QD on Days 1-21; d: 40 mg (oral) on Days 1, 8, 15 and 22. In the D-Rd arm, DARA was given at 16 mg/kg (intravenously) QW for Cycles 1-2, Q2W for Cycles 3-6, and Q4W thereafter. In both arms, patients were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Key secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), minimal residual disease (MRD)-negativity rate (10-5 sensitivity, clonoSEQ® version 2.0), and safety. Results This international study randomized 737 patients (368 to D-Rd; 369 to Rd) from 14 countries. Key baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two arms. The median (range) age was 73 (45-90) years with 44% of patients ≥75 years, and 52% were male. Two thirds of patients had ECOG scores ≥1: ECOG score 0, 34%; 1, 50%; ≥2, 17%. Overall, 27%, 43%, and 29% were ISS stage I, II, and III, respectively. Of 642 patients evaluable for FISH/karyotyping analysis, 86% and 14% were standard and high cytogenetic risk, respectively. The prespecified interim analysis occurred after 239 PFS events on 24 September 2018 with a median follow up of 28 months. For the primary endpoint, the hazard ratio was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.43 to 0.72; P <0.0001), representing a 45% reduction in the risk of progression or death in patients treated with D-Rd (Figure). The median PFS for the Rd arm was 31.9 months and not reached for the D-Rd arm. Adding DARA to Rd resulted in deeper responses with a complete response (CR) or better rate of 47.6% in the D-Rd arm compared with 24.7% in the Rd arm (odds ratio [OR] 2.75, 95% CI, 2.01 to 3.76; P <0.0001). The very good partial response (VGPR) or better rate was 79.3% in the D-Rd arm compared with 53.1% in the Rd arm (OR 3.4, 95% CI, 2.45 to 4.72; P <0.0001). A total of 19% of patients have died and the HR for OS was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.56 to 1.1); follow-up is ongoing. Higher rates (5% or more difference) of grade 3/4 pneumonia, neutropenia, and leukopenia were observed in the D-Rd arm. The safety profile is consistent with previously reported DARA studies. The complete topline data set will be presented with additional efficacy endpoints, including MRD negativity rate. Conclusion The addition of DARA to Rd in patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM significantly reduced the risk of progression or death by 45%. There are no new safety signals using DARA plus Rd in NDMM. These data together with the phase 3 ALCYONE study (D-VMP vs VMP) support the addition of DARA to standard of care combinations in patients with NDMM ineligible for transplant. Disclosures Facon: Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kumar:KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: 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; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Plesner:Celgene: Other: Independent Response Assessment Comittee; Janssen: Consultancy. Orlowski:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioTheryX: Research Funding; Spectrum Pharma: Research Funding. Moreau:Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hulin:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Goldschmidt:Adaptive Biotechnology: 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, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: 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; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; ArtTempi: Honoraria. O'Dwyer:Janssen: Consultancy. Perrot:Janssen: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Honoraria. Venner:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Weisel:Celgene: Consultancy; Angeb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers SquibbMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ahmadi:Genmab: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chiu:Janssen Research & Development, LLC: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wang:Janssen Research & Development, LLC: Employment. Van Rampelbergh:Janssen: Employment. Uhlar:Janssen: Employment. Kobos:Janssen Research & Development: Employment. Qi:Janssen Research & Development, LLC: Employment. Usmani:Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Genmab, Merck, MundiPharma, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics,Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Prospective validation of breast cancer risk models integrating classical risk factors and genetic variants is required for risk-stratified prevention and screening strategies. The objective of this study was to validate a breast cancer risk model integrating classical risk factors and a 313-variant polygenic risk score (PRS) in multiple prospective cohort studies, and to project five-year risk of breast cancer in six different countries. Methods: The study population included 7,529 cases and 230,103 controls from 14 prospective cohort studies in Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, UK, and USA. We used the Individualized Coherent Absolute Risk Estimator (iCARE) tool for risk model building, validation, and risk projection. Expected five-year risk of invasive or in situ breast cancer was compared to observed risk, overall and within deciles of expected risk using goodness of fit statistics. We evaluated calibration of the relative risk through meta-analysis across cohorts, and of the absolute risk within each cohort. Model discrimination was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC), and percentages of women crossing risk thresholds. Projections of five-year risk distributions were estimated for women of European ancestry aged 50-70 years in the general populations of these six countries. Results: Analysis showed overall good calibration of the integrated iCARE-based model relative risk for both women younger than 50 years (χ2=14.9, P=0.09) and aged 50 years or older (χ2=14.6, P=0.10), with a small overestimation of risk for women in the highest decile of expected risk (RR = 3.5 expected vs 2.3 (95% CI 1.6 to 3.2) observed for women &lt;50 years; and 2.8 expected vs 2.3 (95% CI 2.0 to 2.7) observed for women 50+ years). The age-adjusted AUCs for the integrated model were 63.1 (95% CI 60.9 to 65.3) and 62.9 (95% CI 61.8 to 64.0), for the two age groups respectively. The calibration of absolute risk showed substantial variation across cohorts, particularly for the older group, but had no systematic bias. Model based projections in the general populations showed that compared to the population average, women in the 1st and 99th percentiles of the integrated risk score had relative risks 0.19 and 3.56 respectively. The proportion of women of European ancestry aged 50-70 years with a five-year risk greater than 3% (threshold for consideration of risk-lowering drugs by U.S. Preventive Services Task Force) ranged from 7.1% in Germany to 18.2% in the US, which corresponds to ~5.5 million women in the US. Conclusions: Five-year risk predictions from a model with classical risk factors and PRS are well calibrated and provide substantial risk stratification across multiple cohorts in six different countries. Further studies are needed to evaluate the clinical utility of the validated model for risk stratified screening and prevention of breast cancer. Citation Format: Parichoy Pal Choudhury, Amber Wilcox, Chi Gao, Brian Carter, Anika Husing, Mark Brook, Mikael Eriksson, Kara Martin, Chris Scott, Min Shi, Thomas Ahearn, Michael Jones, Nick Orr, Minouk Schoemaker, Kamila Czene, Jenny Chang-Claude, Jacques Simard, Doug Easton, Marjanka K. Schmidt, Dale Sandler, Clarice R. Weinberg, Celine Vachon, Roger Milne, Per Hall, Anthony Swerdlow, Rudolph Kaaks, Myrto Barrdahl, Mia Gaudet, Antonis Antoniou, Peter Kraft, Montserrat Garcia-Closas, Nilanjan Chatterjee. Validation of breast cancer risk model incorporating classical risk factors and polygenic risk scores in 14 prospective cohort studies in 6 countries [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 962.

Abstract MYC dysregulation, the most common genetic aberration in multiple myeloma, is frequently due to the translocation of super-enhancers to the MYC locus. Several drugs target proteins that are enriched at many of these enhancers including BRD4 (BET inhibitors, BETi) and Ikaros (IMiDs), although their mechanism of action remains poorly understood. Here we present a characterization of the responses to these drugs in a collection of over sixty myeloma cell lines having a diversity of MYC rearrangements. We found that the anti-proliferative effects of these drugs significantly correlated with changes in MYC protein levels, consistent with both drugs targeting MYC expression. Despite this common target, there was no statistically significant correlation between the individual BETi and IMiD responses, suggesting that they act through different mechanisms. Of those lines having extremes of sensitivity or resistance, there were two major groups (BETiS/IMiDS and BETiS/IMiDR), a smaller group of four lines resistant to both drugs individually (BETiR/IMiDR) and only one line was BETiR/IMiDS. In the BETiR/IMiDR group, resistance to BETi was mediated by a BRD4-independent mechanism as BRD4 was efficiently released from the MYC-associated enhancers. In all three of BETiR/IMiDR cell lines that we examined, treatment with BETi and IMiD together abolished proliferation and down-regulated MYC, consistent with parallel BRD4- and Ikaros-dependent pathways driving MYC expression. These resistant lines all expressed high levels of the transcription factor ETV4 and knocking out its gene sensitized a line to each drug individually. Thus ETV4 appears to be necessary for the parallel pathways driving MYC expression. There were nine lines in the BETiS/IMiDR group. Sensitivity to BETi in these lines could be explained by either low ETV4 expression or by BETi repressing Ikaros levels (which was only observed in BETiS lines, suggesting that BRD4 drives IKZF1 expression in these lines). Thus, in ETV4-containing lines, BETi sensitivity is due to the simultaneously targeting of the BRD4- and Ikaros-dependent pathways. IMiD resistance likely was due to several reasons. In one cell line, OCIMY5, IMiD had little effect on Ikaros levels, likely due to the previously reported low levels of Cereblon. Seven of the eight remaining lines expressed high levels of either ETV4, or the other potential super-enhancer binding factors IRF4 or RUNX1. In the eight BETiS/IMiDS cell lines, IMiD strongly reduced both Ikaros and Aiolos protein levels, which likely caused IMiD sensitivity. As with the BETiS lines described above, the lines in this group either lacked ETV4 or BETi repressed Ikaros levels. In conclusion, by examining drug response in a collection of genetically annotated myeloma cell lines we have been able to identify factors that contribute the broad range of responses to BETi and IMiDs in myeloma cells. Citation Format: Daniel L. Riggs, Camille Herzog, Victoria M. Garbitt, Niamh Keane, Courtney J. Hillukka, Zachary J. Hammond, Julia E. Wiedmeier, Seth J. Welsh, Shulan Tian, Huihuang Yan, Ranjan Maity, Nizar Bahlis, Paola Neri, W Michael Kuehl, Marta Chesi, P Leif Bergsagel. IMiDs and BET inhibitors target distinct pathways of MYC dysregulation by super-enhancers in multiple myeloma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 3015.

Abstract Background and Aims: Progastrin is a tumor promoting peptide which is detectable in the blood of patients with different cancers. Progastrin gene is a direct target of the WNT/ß-catenin oncogenic pathway involved in tumorigenesis and possibly tumor progression/ treatment efficacy. Since WNT/ß-catenin oncogenic pathway is dysregulated in advanced prostate cancer we evaluated plasma progastrin in metastatic prostate cancer as a predictive and prognostic biomarker. Methods: Metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) and metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) states were enrolled in a cohort study of blood sample collection and follow-up for outcomes between 9/2009 and 11/2013. Patients were enrolled in mHSPC unique sub-cohorts before initiating androgen deprivation therapy (ADT); during ADT; at the time of failure of ADT and before starting chemotherapy. Plasma progastrin was measured using the ELISA cancerREAD®. Progastrin concentrations in the cancer patients (test set) was assessed against 213 samples from asymptomatic volunteers from the French blood establishment (control set) and prograstin levels were also compared for each of the above four mHSPC and mCRPC cohorts as well as for association with time to failure on AA for the mHSPC cohort and overall survival for both mHSPC and mCRPC subcohorts. We also determined progastrin levels in patients with two serial samples to evaluate if changes were predictive for overall survival. Results: Of the 523 mHSPC+mCRPC patients 96 were in mHSPC state enrolled before starting ADT; 101 mHSPC patients were enrolled while receiving ADT; 143 mHSPC patients were enrolled at the time of ADT failure and 143 were clinically progressive mCRPC. All cohorts were unique and 246/523 patients had two serial samples collected and analyzed across all subcohorts. The median time of follow up of the whole cohort was 8.34 years (IQR: 4.53-12.97) and 371/523 had died at the time of the analysis. Plasma progastrin levels was detected in 87.6% of all the patients (cut-off value 1 pM, range 0 to 311 pM, median value of 4.7 pM) compared to the control set (median value=0.61 pM; IQR 0.00-1.58). The Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis indicated an area under the curve of 0.84 (p&lt;0.0001; 95% CI 0.81 to 0.87). Of these, 106 patients had a decrease and 140 patients an increase of progastrin levels. Patients with a serial increase of progastrin had a worst overall survival compare to the other group (p=0.019). Conclusion: Progastrin is a blood based biomarker elevated in advanced prostate cancer patients serial increases in progastrin levels during treatment are predictive of poor survival. Progastrin assay might be useful for monitoring therapeutic interventions like androgen deprivation therapy effects as well for advanced prostate cancer patients. Citation Format: Manish Kohli, Winston Tan, Lea Payen, Carole Langlois-Jacques, Pierre Liaud, Delphine Maucort-Boulch, Dominique Joubert, Alexandre Prieur. Plasma progastrin level as a predictive and prognostic biomarker in advanced prostate cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 2294.

Abstract Background and Aims: Progastrin is a tumor promoting peptide which is detectable in the blood of patients with different cancers (Prieur et al. AACR 2017, Prieur et al. ASCO 2017). Progastrin gene is a direct target of the WNT/ß-catenin oncogenic pathway involved in tumorigenesis of many organs, but it is unknown if it has any prognostic significance in metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) patients. We evaluated progastrin as a prognosis marker along with known markers of prognosis in mRCCC. Methods: 145 patients with mRCCC were enrolled in this study and blood samples were drawn after consent. Progastrin was measured using the ELISA cancerREAD®. Progastrin concentrations in the 145 mRCCC patients (test set) was assessed against 213 samples from asymptomatic volunteers from the French blood establishment (control set). The prognostic impact of progastrin levels was determined with overall survival (OS) using Cox proportional hazards and also compared to MSKCC based clinical prognosis (good;intermediate; poor). Statistical significance was considered at P≤0.05. Results: The median follow-up of the cohort was 5.45 years (IQR: 1.87-9.95) and at the time of analysis 98/145 patients had died from disease progression. Plasma progastrin was detected in 95% of the patients (cut-off value 1 pM, range 0 to 272 pM, median value of 7.2 pM; IQR 3.20-19.71) compared to the control set (median value=0.61 pM; IQR 0.00-1.58). The Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis indicated an area under the curve of 0.92 (p&lt;0.0001; 95% CI 0.89 to 0.94). At the univariate level, MSKCC scores (good; intermediate; poor categories) in this cohort was associated with OS and was prognostic (p&lt;0.0001). We detected progastrin levels were higher with MSKCC score poor prognostic (p&lt;0.0002) (median 30.39 pM; IQR 9.31-57.20). Elevated progastrin was also independently associated with poor survival (p&lt;0.0001) and a multivariate model of MSKCC taken with progastrin levels remained significantly associated with poor survival (p&lt;0.0001). Conclusion: Elevated progastrin levels in mRCCC is correlated with poor survival and further refines clinically used MSKCC prognostic scores. Progastrin assay is a simple and inexpensive blood test that might define subsets of mRCCC patients with poor survival who need to be identified for aggressive treatments. Citation Format: Manish Kohli, Winston Tan, Lea Payen, Carole Langlois-Jacques, Pierre Liaud, Delphine Maucort-Boulch, Dominique Joubert, Alexandre Prieur. Prognostic impact of progastrin levels in blood compared to MSKCC based clinical prognosis in metastatic renal cell cancer patients [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 2289.

Abstract Purpose: To develop a prognostic model and cytogenetic risk classification for previously treated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) undergoing reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Experimental Design: We performed a retrospective analysis of outcomes of 606 patients with CLL who underwent RIC allogeneic HCT between 2008 and 2014 reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Results: On the basis of multivariable models, disease status, comorbidity index, lymphocyte count, and white blood cell count at HCT were selected for the development of prognostic model. Using the prognostic score, we stratified patients into low-, intermediate-, high-, and very-high-risk [4-year progression-free survival (PFS) 58%, 42%, 33%, and 25%, respectively, P &lt; 0.0001; 4-year overall survival (OS) 70%, 57%, 54%, and 38%, respectively, P &lt; 0.0001]. We also evaluated karyotypic abnormalities together with del(17p) and found that del(17p) or ≥5 abnormalities showed inferior PFS. Using a multivariable model, we classified cytogenetic risk into low, intermediate, and high (P &lt; 0.0001). When the prognostic score and cytogenetic risk were combined, patients with low prognostic score and low cytogenetic risk had prolonged PFS (61% at 4 years) and OS (75% at 4 years). Conclusions: In this large cohort of patients with previously treated CLL who underwent RIC HCT, we developed a robust prognostic scoring system of HCT outcomes and a novel cytogenetic-based risk stratification system. These prognostic models can be used for counseling patients, comparing data across studies, and providing a benchmark for future interventions. For future study, we will further validate these models for patients receiving targeted therapies prior to HCT.

Background:MAIA, an ongoing phase 3 trial of transplant‐ineligible patients with NDMM, demonstrated significant improvement in progression‐free survival with D‐Rd vs Rd alone. Assessment of patient‐reported outcomes (PRO) alongside efficacy endpoints provides patient perspective on their quality of survival and overall value of health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) while on treatments.Aims:To utilize PRO assessments as a tool in capturing the patient perspective on quality of survival and HRQoL changes in MAIA.Methods:The EORTC QLQ‐C30 and EQ‐5D‐5L questionnaires were completed by patients using an electronic device at baseline and every 3 months during treatment; interim results are presented for first 12 months. Treatment effects were assessed using repeated measures, mixed effects models and thresholds for clinically meaningful benefit were based on established criterion from the literature.Results:Compliance rates in completing the assessment tools were high and comparable at baseline (>90%) and through month 12 (>80%) for both groups (D‐Rd [n = 368]; Rd [n = 369]). Improvement in Global Health Status (GHS) occurred in both groups; however, for D‐Rd, significantly greater improvement was observed at cycle 3 (LS mean change; D‐Rd: 4.5 [95% CI: 2.4, 6.6], Rd: 1.5 [95% CI: −0.7, 3.7]; [p = 0.0454]) and increasing improvement occurred across all time points. Significant improvement and clinically meaningful benefit in HRQoL for D‐Rd was also observed in EQ‐5D‐5L Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores (LS mean change; D‐Rd: 10.1 [95% CI: 8.1, 12.1], Rd: 4.9 [95% CI: 2.8, 7.0]; [p = 0.0002]). The VAS median time to worsening was 10 mo longer for D‐Rd. Of note, meaningful differences were observed between the treatment groups in two subscale scores, pain symptoms and cognitive functioning. Statistically significant less pain was reported early with D‐Rd (LS mean change at cycle 3; D‐Rd: −17.9 [95% CI: −20.7, −15.0], Rd: −11.0 [95% CI: −14.0, −8.1]; [p = 0.0007]); clinically meaningful reduction in pain symptoms was sustained with D‐Rd. There was a decline in cognitive functioning through Cycle 12 in both treatment arms with the peak difference occurring at Cycle 9, but mean differences between groups were not statistically significant.Summary/Conclusion:Faster and sustained improvement in patients treated with D‐Rd was observed using HRQoL assessments compared with Rd, with similar findings reflected across the pain subscale.

Background:The pivotal FIRST trial, the largest study conducted in transplant‐ineligible (TNE) patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), examined lenalidomide plus low‐dose dexamethasone until disease progression (Rd continuous), Rd for 18 cycles (Rd18), and melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT). The study, conducted in 18 countries in Europe, North America, and Asia Pacific, demonstrated that Rd continuous significantly improved progression‐free survival (PFS) vs MPT (median 26.0 vs 21.9 mos; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.59‐0.79; P < .00001). PFS was similarly extended for Rd continuous vs Rd18 (median 21.0 mos; HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60‐0.81). Furthermore, median overall survival (OS) was significantly longer with Rd continuous vs MPT (median 59.1 vs 49.1 mos; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67‐0.92; P = .0023). These results support the use of frontline oral, alkylator‐free continuous therapy for TNE NDMM pts and established Rd continuous as a standard of care as reflected by clinical guidelines in Canada, the US, and Europe.Aims:To report outcomes in the subset of patients from Canada and the US.MethodsPts with TNE NDMM were randomized 1:1:1 to Rd continuous (with lenalidomide given on days 1‐21 of 28‐day cycles until disease progression), Rd18 (with lenalidomide given on days 1‐21 of eighteen 28‐day cycles), or MPT (twelve 42‐day cycles). Rd18 and MPT were both 72 weeks in duration. Stratification factors included country and Rd continuous vs MPT was the primary comparison. The primary endpoint was PFS and secondary endpoints included OS, time to next therapy (TTNT) and safety. Time from randomization to second progression or death (PFS2) was an exploratory analysis. Response assessment used for PFS and PFS2 analysis was determined by investigators based on International Myeloma Working Group criteria. Data is presented as of the January 21, 2016 cutoff used for the final OS analysis.Results:A total of 312 pts from Canada (n = 252) and the US (n = 60) were enrolled (104 in each arm). Consistent with results from the intent‐to‐treat (ITT) analysis, the Canada/US subgroup also demonstrated a significant improvement in PFS with Rd continuous vs MPT (median 29.3 vs 20.2 mos; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49‐0.97; P = .03326) and an improvement vs Rd18 (median 21.9 mos; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.51‐1.02; Table). Median OS was 56.9 vs 46.8 mos for Rd continuous vs MPT (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.53‐1.11; P = .15346). Median PFS2 was longer for Rd continuous vs MPT (median 39.3 vs 35.1 mos; HR, 0.69; 95% CI 0.50‐0.95) as was TTNT (median 39.1 vs 24.6 mos; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37‐0.78). Additional details, including safety data, will be presented at the meeting.Summary/Conclusion:In the Canada/US subpopulation of pts from FIRST, Rd continuous extended median PFS by 9 mos vs MPT and > 7 mos vs Rd18. Rd continuous also delayed median TTNT > 14 mos and resulted in a longer PFS2 vs MPT, suggesting that the benefit from frontline Rd continuous is maintained at relapse. These results are consistent with that from the ITT population confirming the advantage of Rd continuous vs MPT in the Canada/US subgroup and supporting the role of Rd continuous as a standard of care for TNE pts with NDMM. The efficacy observed with Rd continuous raises the question on the role of immunostimulatory effects by the immunomodulatory agents in NDMM.image

Abstract HLA-haploidentical hematopoietic cell transplantation (Haplo-HCT) using posttransplantation cyclophosphamide (PT-Cy) has improved donor availability. However, a matched sibling donor (MSD) is still considered the optimal donor. Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database, we compared outcomes after Haplo-HCT vs MSD in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in first complete remission (CR1). Data from 1205 adult CR1 AML patients (2008-2015) were analyzed. A total of 336 patients underwent PT-Cy–based Haplo-HCT and 869 underwent MSD using calcineurin inhibitor–based graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis. The Haplo-HCT group included more reduced-intensity conditioning (65% vs 30%) and bone marrow grafts (62% vs 7%), consistent with current practice. In multivariable analysis, Haplo-HCT and MSD groups were not different with regard to overall survival (P = .15), leukemia-free survival (P = .50), nonrelapse mortality (P = .16), relapse (P = .90), or grade II-IV acute GVHD (P = .98). However, the Haplo-HCT group had a significantly lower rate of chronic GVHD (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.48; P &lt; .001). Results of subgroup analyses by conditioning intensity and graft source suggested that the reduced incidence of chronic GVHD in Haplo-HCT is not limited to a specific graft source or conditioning intensity. Center effect and minimal residual disease–donor type interaction were not predictors of outcome. Our results indicate a lower rate of chronic GVHD after PT-Cy–based Haplo-HCT vs MSD using calcineurin inhibitor–based GVHD prophylaxis, but similar other outcomes, in patients with AML in CR1. Haplo-HCT is a viable alternative to MSD in these patients.