Citations

Background Past research in population health trends has shown that injuries form a substantial burden of population health loss. Regular updates to injury burden assessments are critical. We report Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 Study estimates on morbidity and mortality for all injuries. Methods We reviewed results for injuries from the GBD 2017 study. GBD 2017 measured injury-specific mortality and years of life lost (YLLs) using the Cause of Death Ensemble model. To measure non-fatal injuries, GBD 2017 modelled injury-specific incidence and converted this to prevalence and years lived with disability (YLDs). YLLs and YLDs were summed to calculate disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Findings In 1990, there were 4 260 493 (4 085 700 to 4 396 138) injury deaths, which increased to 4 484 722 (4 332 010 to 4 585 554) deaths in 2017, while age-standardised mortality decreased from 1079 (1073 to 1086) to 738 (730 to 745) per 100 000. In 1990, there were 354 064 302 (95% uncertainty interval: 338 174 876 to 371 610 802) new cases of injury globally, which increased to 520 710 288 (493 430 247 to 547 988 635) new cases in 2017. During this time, age-standardised incidence decreased non-significantly from 6824 (6534 to 7147) to 6763 (6412 to 7118) per 100 000. Between 1990 and 2017, age-standardised DALYs decreased from 4947 (4655 to 5233) per 100 000 to 3267 (3058 to 3505). Interpretation Injuries are an important cause of health loss globally, though mortality has declined between 1990 and 2017. Future research in injury burden should focus on prevention in high-burden populations, improving data collection and ensuring access to medical care.

TPS7574 Background: Pts with LBCL who have persistent disease assessed by dynamic PET after rituximab-based induction therapy have an increased risk of death (Casasnovas, et al. Blood. 2017). Axi-cel is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy approved for the treatment of pts with relapsed/refractory LBCL with ≥ 2 prior systemic therapies. In ZUMA-1, the registrational study of axi-cel in pts with refractory LBCL, the objective response rate (ORR) was 91% (70% complete response [CR] rate) in pts with double-expressor or high-grade LBCL with ongoing responses in 48% after a median follow-up of 27.1 mos (Locke FL, et al. Lancet Oncol 2019). Furthermore, pts with fewer prior lines of therapy and lower tumor burden had higher rates of ongoing responses and manageable safety (Locke et al. ASCO 2018. 3039). ZUMA-12 will investigate the efficacy and safety of axi-cel as a first-line therapy in newly diagnosed pts with high-risk LBCL who have PET-positive disease after 2 cycles of induction therapy. Methods: This Phase 2 study has a planned enrollment of ≈40 pts aged ≥ 18 y with high-risk LBCL, defined by the presence of MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 translocations by FISH or an IPI score ≥ 3 any time before enrollment, and an ECOG performance status of 0 – 1. Before enrollment, pts must have a Deauville score of 4 – 5 (Barrington SF et al. J Clin Oncol. 2014) after 2 cycles of chemoimmunotherapy that includes an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody and anthracycline. After leukapheresis, pts with bulky or rapidly progressing disease may receive optional non-chemotherapy bridging therapy. Following conditioning therapy with cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m2) and fludarabine (30 mg/m2) for 3 days, pts will receive a single infusion of axi-cel at a target dose of 2 × 106 CAR T cells/kg. The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed CR rate per the Lugano classification (Cheson et al. J Clin Oncol. 2014). Key secondary endpoints include ORR, duration of response, event-free survival, progression-free survival, overall response, safety, relapse with CNS disease and levels of blood CAR T cells and serum cytokines over time. Accrual is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT03761056.

176 Background: Multiple tumour tissue studies have demonstrated the prognostic utility of CNVs in mCRPC. However, accurate assessment of CNVs in plasma cfDNA remains challenging, and prognostic significance has not been well characterized. Using a large customized panel, we correlated plasma CNVs with clinical outcomes in a contemporary cohort of mCRPC patients. Methods: Deep targeted sequencing was performed using a 180-gene cfDNA panel (Predicine) in 56 patients commencing AR pathway inhibitors (enzalutamide or abiraterone; n = 34) or taxane chemotherapy (n = 22) at two Australian institutions. Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional-hazards models were used to correlate CNVs with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Significant results were validated in an independent cohort (Mayo Clinic, n = 144). Results: Median follow-up was 19.4 months (mo; IQR 11.3-31.9). The most common CNVs in the Australian cohort are shown (Table). OS was significantly decreased in patients with PI3KCA gain (median 21.7 mo vs 6.6 mo, p < 0.0001), PTEN loss (24.8 mo vs 11.7 mo, p = 0.0019) and AR gain (21.7 mo vs 12.0 mo, p = 0.0083). Furthermore, all three alterations independently predicted for poor survival in multivariable analyses (MVA; Table). Findings in the independent cohort showed similar OS results in MVA: PIK3CA gain (HR 2.0, p = 0.07), PTEN loss (HR 1.7, p = 0.08) and AR gain (HR 1.7, p = 0.03). Conclusions: Sequencing of plasma cfDNA revealed that PTEN loss, and PIK3CA and AR gain are associated with inferior clinical outcomes in patients commencing contemporary systemic treatment. These data support therapeutic strategies co-targeting the PI3K and AR pathways in mCRPC.[Table: see text]

Background: CLR 131 is a novel targeted radiotherapeutic that exploits the selective uptake and retention of phospholipid ethers (PLEs) by malignant cells. Based on initial preclinical and clinical experience and the radiosensitivity of MM, fractionated dosing of CLR 131 is being examined in RRMM in a Phase 1 trial (NCT02278315) and a Phase 2 trial, CLOVER-1 (NCT02952508). Methods: Both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials of CLR 131 aim to determine efficacy and safety in RRMM. Eligibility criteria include progressive or relapsed MM that is refractory to at least 1 proteasome inhibitor (PI) and 1 immunomodulatory (IMiD) drug with no upper limit to the number of prior lines of therapy. Prior autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and external beam radiation therapy are allowed (&lt; 20% of total marrow irradiated). The Phase 1 trial was a single and fractionated ascending dose escalation safety study and the Phase 2 trial is evaluating 3 doses: a bolus dose and 2 fractionated doses. The fractionated doses of CLR 131 included infusion of either 31.25 mCi/m2 CLR 131 or 37.5 mCi/m2 CLR 131 (administered as 15.625 mCi/m2 or 18.75 mCi/m2, respectively, on day 1 and day 7 (± 1 day)) administered as a 30-minute intravenous infusion is reported here. Adverse events (AEs) are graded by NCI-CTCAE v4.03. Responses were determined using IMWG criteria as assessed by the investigator. Results: As of 30Jul2019, 10 subjects have received fractionated 31.25 mCi/m2 and 6 subjects fractionated 37.5 mCi/m2 CLR 131. In addition, 1 subject was scheduled to receive fractionated 37.5 mCi/m2 CLR 131 but died due to progressive disease prior to administration of the second dose; this subject is not included in the analyses below as they did not receive both fractionated doses. There is no upper age limit for enrollment and the median age for the 16 RRMM patients was 71 (range 51-83), including 6 females and 10 males with a median of 4 prior therapies (range 2 to 13). Seven patients had prior ASCT. CLR 131 demonstrated 100% disease control rate in subjects receiving either fractionated dose of CLR 131. The overall response rate (ORR) in the fractionated 37.5 mCi/m2 cohort is 50%. Three subjects in the cohort experienced a partial responses (PR), median time to response 43 days, and the other three had minimal responses (MR) with an average 39% reduction in m-protein. In this cohort, 80% of the subjects were either quad- or penta-refractory; all 80% were refractory to daratumumab. There were two subjects in the 31.25 mCi/m2 cohort with non-secretory disease and their status was followed by FDG-PET imaging. Both have been excluded from the evaluation of efficacy as their disease does not meet with IMWG criteria for response. No patients in this cohort achieved a PR or better however a majority of the subjects experienced a minimal response. The primary AEs include thrombocytopenia, anemia, neutropenia, and fatigue (Table 2). The hematologic AEs were expected, manageable and followed a predictable timeline to nadir (average. 40 days) and subsequent recovery (average 17 days post nadir). Conclusions: CLR 131 is a unique, first in class targeted radiotherapeutic for RRMM. Preliminary data for CLR 131 administered as a fractionated dose shows an acceptable and expected safety profile in this patient population. Fractionated dosing at 37.5 mCi/m2 has shown an efficacy signal and has been adopted as the standard for CLR 131 dosing in ongoing and future trials. Dose escalation to determine the highest tolerated dose is ongoing in the Phase 1 study and is currently examining a fractionated infusion of 40 mCi/m2 administered as 20 mCi/m2 CLR 131 on day 1 and day 7 (± 1 day). Based upon these data enrollment to the fractionated 37.5 mCi/m2 cohort of the Phase 2 trial continues. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy. Stiff:Gilead/Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Gamida-Cell: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Unum: Research Funding. Ibrahim:Cellectar: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pfeizer: Research Funding; Puma: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Research Funding; Hoffman-LaRoche: Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Cull:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding. Green:GSK: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Cellectar: Research Funding. Oliver:Cellectar Biosciences: Employment. Longcor:Cellectar Biosciences: Employment, Equity Ownership.

580 Background: Though studies indicate that the genomic profiles of ICC and ECC are distinct, the clinical features that differentiate them still remain to be well characterized. The purpose of this study was to further analyze these differences and patient treatment patterns in a multi-center cohort. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed at 8 institutions on patients (pts) with ICC or ECC diagnosed after June 2009. Data on demographics, risk factors, treatments, pathology and overall survival (OS) were collected. Tumor genotyping results from CLIA-certified tissue assays were analyzed. Fisher’s exact, Wilcoxon rank sum and log-rank tests were used to compare sub-groups. Results: In a database of 737 pts with cholangiocarcinoma, 538(73%) had ICC and 199(27%) had ECC. Pts with ICC more often presented in later stages, had tumors > 5cm at resection (p < 0.0001) and had metastases to the liver, lymph nodes, lung and/or bone (p < 0.01). Pts with ICC more often received liver directed therapy, targeted therapy and multiple lines of systemic therapy and they more often enrolled in a clinical trial (all p < 0.01). Pts with ECC were more likely to be male, undergo surgery, receive adjuvant chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation (all p < 0.05). Mutation profiling performed in 381 (52%) pts (ICC/ECC = 301/80) showed that pts with ICC were more likely to have IDH1 mutations and FGFR2 fusions, whereas pts with ECC were more likely to have KRAS, APC, SMAD4, WNT, TGFb and TP53 mutations (all < 0.05). Factors that did not differ significantly between pts with ICC and ECC include race, rates of primary sclerosing cholangitis, median diagnosis CA19-9 levels and R1 resection rate. Median OS from diagnosis was 18.9 months in ICC and 17.3 months in ECC (p = 0.8471). Conclusions: While pts with ICC and ECC have some similarities in their clinical features, differences in metastases patterns and molecular profiling significantly impact their management such that pts with ICC receive more liver-directed therapy, targeted therapy and more lines of systemic therapy. Further prospective studies are needed as referral patterns to tertiary care centers may have impacted these results.

AbstractIntroductionWe created global rating scoring rules for the CDR® plus NACC FTLD to detect and track early frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) and to conduct clinical trials in FTLD.MethodsThe CDR plus NACC FTLD rating was applied to 970 sporadic and familial participants from the baseline visit of Advancing Research and Treatment in Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration (ARTFL)/Longitudinal Evaluation of Familial Frontotemporal Dementia Subjects (LEFFTDS). Each of the eight domains of the CDR plus NACC FTLD was equally weighed in determining the global score. An interrater reliability study was completed for 40 participants.ResultsThe CDR plus NACC FTLD showed very good interrater reliability. It was especially useful in detecting clinical features of mild non‐fluent/agrammatic variant primary progressive aphasia participants.DiscussionThe global CDR plus NACC FTLD score could be an attractive outcome measure for clinical trials in symptomatic FTLD, and may be useful in natural history studies and clinical trials in FTLD spectrum disorders.