Citations

Background: Autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) is an effective treatment to achieve deep and durable remission in multiple myeloma (MM). Typically, AHCT is offered to patients <70 years of age, although the median age of diagnosis of MM is 70 years. We compared the outcomes of upfront AHCT across age groups for newly diagnosed MM in the era of novel therapies using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database. Methods: We analyzed the outcomes of 15,999 MM patients aged 20 years and older from the USA who received a single AHCT with melphalan conditioning within 12 months of diagnosis between 2013 and 2017 and reported to the CIBMTR. Multivariate analysis was performed for non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse/progression (REL), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) using Cox proportional hazards model with age at transplant in decades as the main effect. Hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) are reported. Because of the large sample size, a p-value of <0.01 was considered significant a priori. Results: Table 1 shows patient, disease and treatment characteristics by age group at diagnosis. All age groups had similar distribution of gender, race, ethnicity, Karnofsky performance score (KPS), comorbidity index (HCT-CI), stage III by Durie-Salmon/International Staging System. There was a higher proportion of high-risk cytogenetics in patients ≥70 years (30%), compared to age group 40-49 years (24%) and 20-39 years (20%) in this population. Older patients were more likely to be White compared to younger patients: 85% ≥70 compared to 64% 20-39 years. While 82% of the overall population received melphalan 200 mg/m2, 58% of the ≥70% received Mel 140 mg/m2. There were more ASCT performed in the ≥70-year age group in 2017 (28%) compared to 2013 (15%). Univariate outcomes by age groups shown in Table 2 revealed that 100-day NRM was higher in ≥70 years at 1% compared to younger patients (p <0.01) and 2-year OS was lower in ≥70 years at 86 (85-88)% compared to 60-69 years, 89 (88-89)% (p<0.01). When adjusted for other variables (Table 3), compared to reference age group of 60-69 years, patients ≥70 had similar NRM (HR 1.3, 95% CI 1, 1.7, p 0.06), REL (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.9, 1.1, p 0.6), PFS (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1, 1.2, p 0.2), and OS (HR 1.2, 95% CI 1, 1.4, p 0.02). The leading cause of death across all age groups was primary disease. Among the ≥70 years cohort, melphalan dose was a surrogate for worse outcomes including NRM at 100 days (Mel 140, 1 (1-2)% vs Mel 200 0 (0-1)%, p 0.003, PFS at 2 years Mel 140 64 (60-67)% vs Mel 200 69 (66-73)%, p 0.003, and OS at 2 years (Mel 140 85 (82-87)% vs Mel 200 89 (86-91)%, p 0.01) (Figure). Conclusions: This is the largest study of AHCT in older adults with MM. More MM patients ≥70 years are being transplanted in the US over time. While our data may highlight referral and access biases regarding which older patients may be referred for ASCT, our results confirm that patients ≥70 years can undergo transplant safely and achieve similar benefits as 60-69 years' old patients. Our results also suggest that melphalan 200 mg/m2 may be given safely in the ≥70 years population. While melphalan conditioning dose 140 mg/m2 in the ≥70 group is associated with worse outcomes, this is likely a surrogate for higher frailty and comorbidities in this cohort of patients. Our analysis confirms that AHCT has similar benefits in terms of disease control (REL and PFS) in both young and older MM patients. This benefit is seen even in a contemporaneous era where proteasome inhibitors and/or immunomodulator drugs are used in upfront treatment. Thus, AHCT remains a safe consolidation therapy across all age groups of MM patients. Disclosures Hari: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cell Vault: Equity Ownership; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kumar:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Shah:Poseida: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nkarta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma: Research Funding; University of California, San Francisco: Employment; Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Oncopeptides, Karoypharm, Surface Oncology, Precision biosciences GSK, Nektar, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Indapta Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teneobio: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Qazilbash:Genzyme: Other: Speaker; Bioclinical: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; Autolus: Consultancy. D'Souza:EDO-Mundapharma, Merck, Prothena, Sanofi, TeneoBio: Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy; Pfizer, Imbrium, Akcea: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Introduction: Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy directed against B cell maturation antigen (BCMA) has shown promising results for the treatment of relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in several phase 1 studies. Persistence of CAR T cells post infusion may be one determinant of duration of response. bb21217 is a next-generation anti-BCMA CAR T cell therapy based on investigational therapy idecabtagene vicleucel (bb2121) (Friedman 2018, Hum Gene Ther 29:585) that uses the same lentiviral CAR T design as bb2121, but adds the phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitor bb007 during ex vivo culture to enrich the drug product for memory-like T cells. Evidence suggests that CAR T cells with this phenotype may be more persistent and more potent than unselected CAR T cells. CRB-402 is a first-in-human study of bb21217 in patients with RRMM designed to assess safety, pharmacokinetics, efficacy and duration of effect. Methods: CRB-402 (NCT03274219) is an ongoing, multi-center phase 1 dose escalation trial of bb21217 planning to enroll 74 patients with RRMM who received ≥ 3 prior regimens, including a proteasome inhibitor and an immuno-modulatory agent, or are double-refractory to both classes. During dose escalation, enrollment is restricted to patients with ≥ 50% BCMA expression by IHC on malignant plasma cells. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells are collected via leukapheresis and sent to a central facility for transduction, expansion and release testing prior to being returned to the site for infusion. Patients undergo lymphodepletion with fludarabine (30 mg/m2) and cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m2) daily for 3 days, then receive bb21217 as a single infusion. Planned dose levels are 150, 450, 800, and 1,200 x 106 CAR+ T cells and intermediate dose levels are allowed. The primary outcome measure is incidence of adverse events (AEs), including dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Additional outcome measures are quality and duration of clinical response assessed according to the IMWG Uniform Response Criteria, evaluation of minimal residual disease (MRD), progression-free and overall survival, and quantification of CAR+ T cells in blood. Results: Asof April 20, 2019, 22 patients (median age 63 [min;max 42 to 74]) have received bb21217 (12 at 150, 6 at 300 and 4 at 450). Eleven had high tumor burden, defined as ≥ 50% bone marrow plasma cells pre-infusion. Patients had a median of 7 (min;max 4 to 17) prior lines of therapy and 18/22 had prior autologous stem cell transplant; 7/22 had high-risk cytogenetics. Of the 22 patients, 19 received prior daratumumab, 13 received prior Bort/Len/Car/Pom/Dara. Median follow-up after bb21217 infusion was 23 weeks (<1 to 77 weeks). As of data cut-off, 13/22 patients developed cytokine release syndrome (CRS; 5 G1, 7 G2, 1 G3) and responded to supportive care, tocilizumab and/or corticosteroids. Five patients developed neurotoxicity [1 G1, 2 G2, 1 G3 (vertigo/dizziness), 1 G4 (encephalopathy, previously reported)]. For the 1 patient with G4 neurotoxicity, G3 CRS was also reported; both have resolved. A total of 18 patients were evaluable for response with ≥ 2 months of follow up or PD within 2 months. Fifteen (83%) patients demonstrated clinical response per IMWG criteria. Six of these subjects subsequently progressed. Nine patients remained in response, including 2 patients with ongoing response at months 15 and 18. MRD negative results at 10-5 nucleated cells or better were obtained by NGS in 10/10 evaluable responders at month 1. Overall, 6/8 patients evaluable at 6 months and 2/2 patients evaluable at 12 months had detectable CAR T cells in blood. Updated data from this study will be presented, including extended follow-up on the initial patients treated and early clinical and CAR T cell persistence data from at least 15 additional patients treated with up to 450 x 106 CAR+ T cells. Conclusions: The adverse events observed to date were manageable and consistent with known toxicities of CAR T therapies. Initial efficacy results with bb21217 CAR T therapy in heavily pretreated RRMM are encouraging, with 83% of patients demonstrating clinical response. Emerging data demonstrate long-term persistence of CAR T cells in long-term responders. Updated data to be presented will help determine whether treatment with bb21217 results in sustained CAR T cell persistence and durable clinical responses, and whether bb21217 is tolerated at higher doses. Disclosures Berdeja: AbbVie Inc, Amgen Inc, Acetylon Pharmaceuticals Inc, Bluebird Bio, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Celgene Corporation, Constellation Pharma, Curis Inc, Genentech, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Biotech Inc, Kesios Therapeutics, Lilly, Novartis, Poseida: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Amgen Inc, BioClinica, Celgene Corporation, CRISPR Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Kite Pharma Inc, Prothena, Servier, Takeda Oncology: Consultancy. Alsina:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau. Shah:Celgene, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nkarta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teneobio: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Indapta Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Oncopeptides, Karoypharm, Surface Oncology, Precision biosciences GSK, Nektar, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; University of California, San Francisco: Employment. Siegel:Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Jagannath:Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Medicom: Speakers Bureau; Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation: Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy. Madduri:Abbvie: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; undation Medicine: Consultancy. Kaufman:Janssen: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Munshi:Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Oncopep: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Rosenblatt:BMS: Other: Advisory Board ; Parexel: Consultancy; Imaging Endpoint: Consultancy; Partner Tx: Other: Advisory Board; Dava Oncology: Other: Education; BMS: Research Funding; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Other: Advisory Board. Turka:bluebird bio: Employment. Lam:bluebird bio: Employment. Massaro:bluebird bio: Employment. Campbell:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hege:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties; Mersana Therapuetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Arcus Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Petrocca:bluebird bio: Employment. Raje:Amgen Inc.: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy.

Background Primary plasma cell leukemia (pPCL) is a rare plasma cell neoplasm with a high mortality rate. There have been improvements in multiple myeloma (MM) outcomes with novel induction agents and use of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) with maintenance, but similar progress has not been reported for pPCL. We examined the outcomes of pPCL patients receiving novel agents with autologous (autoHCT) or allogeneic (alloHCT) approaches as reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) in the modern era. Methods From 2008 to 2015, 348 pPCL pts underwent HCT (N = 277 - autoHCT and 71 - alloHCT) with 45% and 48% having research level data available, respectively. Cumulative incidences of non-relapse mortality (NRM) and relapse/progression (REL), and probability of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated. Cox multivariate regression was used to model survival after autoHCT only. Median follow-up in autoHCT and alloHCT was 48 and 60 months, respectively. Results AutoHCT Cohort Median age was 60 years and 93% received HCT within 12 months of diagnosis with 76% after a single line of induction (Table 1). 35% had high risk cytogenetics. 23% received bortezomib, doxorubicin, cisplatin, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide (VDPACE). Moreover, 40% received bortezomib (BTZ) and immunomodulatory drug (IMIID)-based triplets. Disease status at HCT was VGPR or better in 47%. 27% received maintenance therapy. At 4 years post-HCT, NRM was 7% (4-11%), REL 76% (69-82%), PFS 17% (13-23%), and OS 28% (22-35%) (Figures 1A, 2A, 2B). Disease status ≥VGPR at HCT and Karnofsky Performance Score >90 significantly predicted superior OS in multivariate analysis. AlloHCT Cohort Median age was 53 years and 89% received HCT within 12 months of diagnosis (Table 1). 61% received a single alloHCT, while 39% used auto-alloHCT tandem approach. 42% had high-risk cytogenetics. 61% received total body irradiation with 44% receiving myeloablative conditioning. Use of VDPACE was higher at 41% in this cohort. VGPR status at HCT was similar (48%), while maintenance was used less often (12%). Grade II-IV acute GVHD occurred in 30% and chronic GVHD in 45%. At four years post-HCT, NRM was 12% (5-21%), REL 69% (56-81%), PFS 19% (10-31%), and OS 31% (19-44%) (Figures 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B). There were no differences in outcomes based on type of HCT. A comparison of post-HCT outcomes of CIBMTR pPCL patients from 1995 to 2006 showed that PFS and OS outcomes are inferior despite lower NRM in this modern cohort (Mahindra et al. Leukemia. 2012). In addition, analysis of SEER (1995-2009) and CIBMTR databases showed that use of HCT increased from 12% (7-21%) in 1995 to 46% (34-64%) in 2009. Conclusion More newly diagnosed pPCL patients are receiving modern induction regimens translating into a higher proportion receiving HCT, but without significant further benefit post-HCT. Post-HCT relapse remains the biggest challenge and further survival in pPCL will likely need a combination of targeted and cell therapy approaches. This study provides a benchmark for future HCT studies for pPCL. Disclosures Girnius: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: 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. Dhakal:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Shah:University of California, San Francisco: Employment; Indapta Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Oncopeptides, Karoypharm, Surface Oncology, Precision biosciences GSK, Nektar, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nkarta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teneobio: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Qazilbash:Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; Bioclinical: Consultancy; Autolus: Consultancy; Genzyme: Other: Speaker. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. D'Souza:EDO-Mundapharma, Merck, Prothena, Sanofi, TeneoBio: Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy; Pfizer, Imbrium, Akcea: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hari:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cell Vault: Equity Ownership; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria.

612 Background: The aim of this study was to examine the impact of diabetes mellitus (DM) on survival in neuroendocrine tumor and the impact of neuroendocrine tumor on glycemic control in DM. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed neuroendocrine tumor with and without DM were matched 1:1 according to age, gender, and year of cancer diagnosis (2005-2017). The file was linked to the electronic medical record to obtain information on DM and neuroendocrine tumor therapies and laboratory results. There were 59 matched pairs (total 118 patients) included in the analysis. We compared characteristics between cases and controls and assessed survival with the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model. Mixed models compared hemoglobin A1c and glucose levels over time. Results: Median age of patients at diagnosis was 67 (40-86); 41% had stage IV disease. Women constituted 49% of the study population; 22% had pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor and 45% had another GI primary neuroendocrine tumor. No differences in race/ethnicity, marital status, alcohol or tobacco use were detected between cancer patients with and without DM. Mean BMI was significantly different between DM and non-DM patients (31.0 [7.90] versus 26.4 [5.27]); p = 0.011. Among those with DM, mean HbA1c during the year following cancer diagnosis was 7.3%. Mean glucose was significantly different between DM (159.1 [43.5] versus non-DM pts 117 [31.5]); p < 0.001. Median follow-up time was 32.8 (2.4-165.4) months in alive patients. Three year survival was estimated at 72% (95% CI: 60-86%) for DM patients versus 80% (95% CI: 70-92%) in non-DM patients by Kaplan Meier method (p = 0.82 log rank test). Hazard ratio (stratification for matched pairs) = 1.33 (95% CI: 0.56 – 3.16; p = 0.51). Conclusions: DM did not adversely impact survival in patients with neuroendocrine tumor. Neuroendocrine tumor and its treatment did not affect glycemic control. This should be reassuring to oncologists and endocrinologists who treat patients with neuroendocrine tumors and diabetes.

DART nanoparticles overcome critical drug delivery barriers for primary tumors and brain metastases.

Abstract Introduction DLBCL is the most common lymphoid neoplasm in adults (Swerdlow 2016). While durable CRs are achieved in approximately 70% of patients (pts) with frontline RCHOP therapy (Pfreundschuh 2008), pts with high-risk features often experience disease resistance or relapse. In Part 1 of an ongoing study, pts with high-intermediate or high risk DLBCL by international prognostic index (IPI) scores, regardless of CD30 expression by IHC, were treated with 1.2 or 1.8 mg/kg brentuximab vedotin (BV) combined with RCHOP. After 3 of the first 10 pts treated at 1.8 mg/kg BV+RCHOP developed Grade 3 peripheral neuropathy (per Standardized MedDRA Query [SMQ]), all pts enrolled subsequently received treatment with 1.2 mg/kg BV+RCHOP. Following completion of enrollment in Part 1, the protocol was amended to enroll a non-randomized portion of the study (Part 2) evaluating the safety and efficacy of 1.8 mg/kg BV+RCHP (Yasenchak 2015), followed by an open-label, randomized portion comparing BV+RCHP to RCHOP (Part 3). Initial results from Part 2 and updated results from Part 1 are reported here. Methods For Part 2 of the study, pts with CD30-expressing high-intermediate and high-risk DLBCL were treated with up to 6 cycles of 1.8 mg/kg BV+RCHP (NCT01925612). Key inclusion criteria were CD30 expression by IHC performed by a local pathology lab and standard IPI scores of 3-5 or age-adjusted IPI (aaIPI) scores of 2-3 (high-intermediate/high risk). CD30 expression was confirmed by a central pathology lab, although CD30 expression by local pathology lab was required for eligibility. Disease response was evaluated with PET/CT per Cheson 2007. Results At the time of analysis for this ongoing study, 11 pts in Part 2 were treated with BV+RCHP (7 male, 4 female; 22-78 yrs). Of these pts, 9 had high-intermediate risk (IPI 3, aaIPI 2) and 2 had high risk disease (IPI 4-5, aaIPI 3), 6 had Stage IV disease, and 6 had an ECOG score of 2. At the end of treatment, the overall response rate was 91% (9 CR, 1 PR); 1 pt had PD after Cycle 4. The most frequent (>20%) treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were alopecia and nausea (73% each); fatigue (64%); constipation and peripheral sensory neuropathy (55% each); neutropenia and throat irritation (36% each); and chills, diarrhea, headache, and stomatitis (27% each). Grade 3 or 4 AEs occurred in 8 pts and 5 pts had serious AEs, which included febrile neutropenia, bacteremia, nausea, pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, and vomiting. Peripheral sensory neuropathy occurred in 6 pts and all were Grade 1 or 2 events; no peripheral motor neuropathy AEs were reported. No AEs were fatal or led to discontinuation. One pt discontinued treatment after Cycle 4 due to disease progression. For the first 51 pts in Part 1, the progression-free survival (PFS) at 18 months for pts with CD30 expression (25 pts) or without detectable CD30 expression (24 pts) by IHC was 79% (95% CI: 57%, 91%) versus 58% (95% CI: 36%, 75%), respectively. Overall survival for pts was 92% (95% CI: 71%, 98%) versus 71% (95% CI: 48%, 85%), respectively. Ten pts had pre-existing peripheral neuropathy (per SMQ) at study entry. Treatment-emergent peripheral neuropathy (per SMQ) was observed in 75% of pts (38/51) who received BV+RCHOP; 55% of these pts (21/38) had resolution of all or some peripheral neuropathy events. Conclusions 1.8 mg/kg BV+RCHP is active as frontline treatment in CD30-expressing, high-intermediate/high risk DLBCL. When combined with RCHP, 1.8 mg/kg BV appears to be well-tolerated. The PFS and OS for pts with CD30-expression who received BV+RCHOP appear promising. The study is currently ongoing in pts with CD30-expressing high-intermediate/high risk DLBCL to assess the safety and activity of 1.8 mg/kg BV+RCHP versus standard RCHOP. Disclosures Halwani: Bristol Myers-Squibb: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Miragen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding. Yasenchak:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Farber:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Burke:Pfizer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses; Millenium: Consultancy. Fayad:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Holkova:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Knapp:Insys Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding. Kolibaba:Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; janssen: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding. Patel-Donnelly:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Yimer:Ariad Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Biotheranostics: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Equity Ownership; Kite Pharma: Equity Ownership; Clovis Oncology: Equity Ownership; Juno Therpeutics: Equity Ownership; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Smith:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Levy:Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Seetharam:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Belada:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Brooks:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Kingsley:Gilead: Equity Ownership; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Equity Ownership. Wagner-Johnston:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Ruffner:Forma Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sydnax: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership; Array Biopharma: Employment; Medivation: Employment. Bartlett:Gilead: Consultancy.

Background: Von Willebrand disease (VWD) is the most common inherited bleeding disorder, affecting 1% of the population, and characterized by deficient or defective von Willebrand factor (VWF). Among women with VWD, up to 80% have heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), many of whom have depleted iron stores and iron deficiency anemia with reduced physical functioning, anxiety, depression, and poor quality of life. HMB is a serious problem causing significant health burden for those affected. The lack of effective therapies for menorrhagia is a major unmet healthcare need in women with VWD: in up to 30% desmopressin (DDAVP), combined oral contraceptives (COCs) hormones, or the recommended non-hormonal agent, tranexamic acid (Lysteda®, TA) may be ineffective or poorly tolerated. VWF concentrates, including plasma-derived VWF (pdVWF, Humate-P®) and recombinant VWF (rVWF, Vonvendi®) safely reduce bleeds in VWD, but few data exist on VWF use in menorrhagia, and no prospective trials are available to guide treatment. As rVWF has higher purity, potency, and a longer half-life than pdVWF, this phase III trial will compare rVWF with TA in reducing menorrhagia in women with type 1 VWD. Methods: This is an NHLBI-funded U01 phase III multicenter, prospective, randomized, crossover trial in to compare IV rVWF vs. po TA in reducing menorrhagia in type 1 VWD, clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02606045. Women with type 1 VWD, VWF:RCo<0.50 IU/dL and menorrhagia, defined as pictorial blood assessment chart score (PBAC)>100 in at least one of the last two cycles, are eligible. Exclusions include hypothyroidism, past thrombosis, and renal disease. Subjects are randomized to rVWF 40 IU/kg IV day 1 vs. TA 1300 mg po three times daily days 1-5 in each of two consecutive cycles. The order of treatment is determined by randomization: in Group 1, rVWF is given in cycles 1 and 2, and TA in cycles 3 and 4; while in Group 2, TA is given in cycles 1 and 2, and rVWF in cycles 3 and 4. A rescue dose day of rVWF 40 IU/kg may be given day 2 of cycles in which rVWF is given. The primary endpoint is a 40-point reduction in PBAC, a validated measure of menstrual loss, after 2 cycles. As rVWF is a greater burden (IV, cost), to show it is superior to TA, it should improve PBAC 40 points more from baseline than TA. Secondary endpoints are cycle severity, cycle length, QoL (SF-36, Ruta, CDC-HRQ0L-14, CES-D), and satisfaction survey. Treatment response will also be compared with VWF assays and VWF genotype. Safety is assessed by number of rescue doses, other bleeding, thrombosis, and allergic reaction. Our research hypothesis is that rVWF will be superior, producing a greater improvement, by at least 40 points, in PBAC, than TA. We also hypothesize that rVWF will be as safe, tolerable, and acceptable as TA, and that VWF assays and VWF genotype will predict response to treatment. A sample size of 60 (inflated to 66 for 5% attrition) will provide 84% power to detect a difference in improvement of 40 points between rVWF and TA. Analysis will be by intent-to-treat analyses, with a two-tailed alternative hypothesis with type 1 error rate of 0.05, a 4-period 2-group (AABB/BBAA) crossover design, and an estimated between-subject standard deviation (SD) of 63 points and within subject SD of 100 points. Results: A total of 442 potential subjects have been identified at 19 participating HTCs, of whom 33 (7.5%) are eligible, and 2 enrolled. The most common reason for ineligibility is use of an IUD (15.6%), COCs (9.4%), age <18 years (6.2%), pregnancy (6.2%), breastfeeding (6.2%), and VWF prophylaxis (3.1%). Nursing services have been contracted for weekend rVWF infusions. In-person site visits include hands-on web portal training, including a password-protected, FDA-validated data entry system, eSYSDM, use of real-time data form completion by tablet, infusion tracking and training, real-time cycle reporting, patient-training checklists, and protocol training and monitoring. Local gynecologists have been invited to refer potentially eligible patients. Discussion: In conclusion, rVWF is a high-purity VWF concentrate with a longer half-life than pdVWF. In this multicenter phase III trial, rVWF is being compared to the current non-hormonal standard, TA, to reduce menorrhagia in adult women with type 1 VWD. rVWF is safe and effective in prevention and treatment of bleeds, and this trial will determine if rVWF reduces menorrhagia to a degree sufficient to justify its IV route and cost. Disclosures Ragni: Sangamo: Research Funding; Alnylam/Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; ICER: Consultancy; OPKO: Research Funding; Bioverativ/Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Biomarin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Shire/Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Study drug; Spark Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Seaman:Spark Therapeutics: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Sidonio:Novo Nordisk: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genetech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda-Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bioverativ: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Grifols: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Uniqure: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kedrion: Research Funding; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Biomarin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kuriakose:Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy. Malec:Hemostasis and Thrombosis Research Society: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spark: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Honoraria; CSL: Honoraria. Rodgers:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Octapharma: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Wheeler:Shire: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novo Nordisk: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Octapharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) treatment has advanced considerably with proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), and, most recently, monoclonal antibodies. However, treatment response is quite heterogeneous, and many patients still progress even with novel combination therapies. Thus, understanding the factors that underlie response to treatment is a priority. Several somatic genomic aberrations and mutations predict poor response to therapy. However, germline variation has not previously been investigated as a predictor of treatment response in MM. We used genome-wide association and transcriptome-wide association approaches to identify germline genetic predictors of treatment response in MM. Methods: We included 510 MM patients from Mayo Clinic and 324 MM patients from UCSF diagnosed from 1999-2015. Basic demographics, laboratory values and pathology at diagnosis, type of initial therapy, duration of therapy, and follow-up were ascertained by chart review. Patients were grouped into categories of treatment based on their first line therapy: proteasome inhibitor-based regimen, IMiD based regimen, combination proteasome and IMiD based regimen, or other. Response was assessed using International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) response criteria after 4-6 cycles of induction. As such, response was categorized into progressive disease (PD), minimal response (MR), partial response (PR), very good partial response (VGPR), or complete response (CR). Germline samples were genotyped using Illumina or Affymetrix arrays and were imputed based on the Haplotype Reference Consortium (HRC). For the genome-wide association study (GWAS), we included all SNPs with minor allele frequency >0.01 and imputation r2 of >0.5. We tested each SNP for association with treatment response using a linear regression model that adjusted for age, gender, and genetic ancestry (from principal components analysis (PCA)). To perform the transcriptome-wide association study (TWAS), we calculated predicted gene expression data using PREDIXCAN software on a reference cohort of 922 individuals with genotype and RNA expression data from peripheral blood. We then tested the association between predicted gene expression and response to therapy using linear regression models. Both the GWAS and TWAS were performed on subgroups of patients who received either proteasome inhibitors or IMiD therapies. The analyses of patients on proteasome inhibitors were adjusted for IMiD use as a covariate and analyses of patients on IMiDs were adjusted for proteasome inhibitor use. The threshold for genome-wide significance loci was set at P = 5 x 10-8 and the threshold for suggestive loci was set at P = 10-6. The threshold for significance for TWAS was set at P = 4 x 10-6 by using a Bonferroni correction for the number of genes for which genetic models of expression could be developed by PREDIXCAN. Results: Overall, 42.7% (59 of 138) of patients on proteasome inhibitors alone, 32.5% (66 of 203) of patients on IMiDs alone, and 58.1% (50 of 86) of patients on combination achieved at least a VGPR. There were no significant differences in response across centers in analyses that adjusted for age, sex and types of therapy. There were no genome wide significant loci to predict for response. We identified 8 suggestive SNPs associated with proteasome inhibitor response and 4 suggestive SNPs associated with IMiD response. TWAS identified ZNF622 as a candidate genetic modifier of proteasome inhibitor effect that was significant after correction for multiple hypothesis testing (P = 1.6 x 10-6). Higher genetically predicted expression was associated with improved response to proteasome inhibitor therapy. Among patients above the median of predicted expression of ZNF622 on proteasome inhibitors, 62.6% achieved at least VGPR; among patients at or below the median of expression, only 37.6% achieved at least VGPR. Conclusions: We identified an association between predicted expression of ZNF622 and clinical response to proteasome inhibitor therapy among MM patients. ZNF622 is a zinc finger binding protein which is known to be co-activator of B Myb activity and to affect apoptosis in response to oxidative stress. Our work highlights the potential importance of pharmacogenetic modifiers of treatment response in MM. Disclosures Shah: Nkarta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Indapta Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; University of California, San Francisco: Employment; Celgene, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma: Research Funding; Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Oncopeptides, Karoypharm, Surface Oncology, Precision biosciences GSK, Nektar, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Poseida: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teneobio: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wong:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Fortis: Research Funding. Martin:Roche and Juno: Consultancy; Amgen, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Pathogenic sequence variants (PSV) in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) are associated with increased risk and severity of prostate cancer. We evaluated whether PSVs in BRCA1/2 were associated with risk of overall prostate cancer or high grade (Gleason 8+) prostate cancer using an international sample of 65 BRCA1 and 171 BRCA2 male PSV carriers with prostate cancer, and 3,388 BRCA1 and 2,880 BRCA2 male PSV carriers without prostate cancer. PSVs in the 3′ region of BRCA2 (c.7914+) were significantly associated with elevated risk of prostate cancer compared with reference bin c.1001-c.7913 [HR = 1.78; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.25–2.52; P = 0.001], as well as elevated risk of Gleason 8+ prostate cancer (HR = 3.11; 95% CI, 1.63–5.95; P = 0.001). c.756-c.1000 was also associated with elevated prostate cancer risk (HR = 2.83; 95% CI, 1.71–4.68; P = 0.00004) and elevated risk of Gleason 8+ prostate cancer (HR = 4.95; 95% CI, 2.12–11.54; P = 0.0002). No genotype–phenotype associations were detected for PSVs in BRCA1. These results demonstrate that specific BRCA2 PSVs may be associated with elevated risk of developing aggressive prostate cancer. Significance: Aggressive prostate cancer risk in BRCA2 mutation carriers may vary according to the specific BRCA2 mutation inherited by the at-risk individual.

Study Design: Retrospective review. Objectives: (1) Identify the 90-day rate of readmission following revision lumbar fusion, (2) identify independent risk factors associated with increased rates of readmission within 90 days, (3) and identify the hospital costs associated with revision lumbar fusion and subsequent readmission within 90 days. Methods: Utilizing 2014 data from the Nationwide Readmissions Database, patients undergoing elective revision lumbar fusion were identified. With this sample, multivariate logistic regression was utilized to identify independent predictors of readmission within 90 days. An analysis of total hospital costs was also conducted. Results: In 2014, an estimated 14 378 patients underwent elective revision lumbar fusion. The readmission rate at 90 days was 3.1% (n = 446). Diabetes with chronic complications was the only comorbidity found to carry significantly increased odds of readmission. Surgical complications such as deep venous thrombosis, surgical wound disruption, hematoma, and pneumonia (experienced during the index admission) were also independent predictors of readmission. Anterior approaches were associated with increased odds of readmission. The most common related diagnoses on readmission were hardware issues, postoperative infection, and disc herniation. Readmissions were associated with an average of $96 152 in increased hospital costs per patient compared with those not readmitted. Conclusion: Relevant patient comorbidities and surgical complications were associated with increased readmission within 90 days. Readmission within 90 days was associated with significant increases in hospital costs.