Citations

Abstract MYC oncoproteins regulate transcription of genes directing cell proliferation, metabolism, and tumorigenesis. A variety of alterations drive MYC expression in acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and enforced MYC expression in hematopoietic progenitors is sufficient to induce AML. Here we report that AML and myeloid progenitor cell growth and survival rely on MYC-directed suppression of Transcription Factor EB (TFEB), a master regulator of the autophagy–lysosome pathway. Notably, although originally identified as an oncogene, TFEB functions as a tumor suppressor in AML, where it provokes AML cell differentiation and death. These responses reflect TFEB control of myeloid epigenetic programs by inducing expression of isocitrate dehydrogenase-1 (IDH1) and IDH2, resulting in global hydroxylation of 5-methycytosine. Finally, activating the TFEB–IDH1/IDH2–TET2 axis is revealed as a targetable vulnerability in AML. Thus, epigenetic control by an MYC–TFEB circuit dictates myeloid cell fate and is essential for maintenance of AML. Significance: Alterations in epigenetic control are a hallmark of AML. This study establishes that a MYC–TFEB circuit controls AML differentiation and epigenetic programs by inducing IDH1/IDH2 and hydroxylation of 5-methylcytosine, that TFEB functions as a tumor suppressor in AML, and that this circuit is a targetable vulnerability in AML. See related commentary by Wu and Eisenman, p. 116.

Abstract Background Immunoglobulin G subclass 4 (IgG4) is hypothesized to play an immunomodulatory role, downregulating humoral immune responses. The role of this anti-inflammatory molecule in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has not been fully characterized. We sought to define alterations in serum IgG4 in patients with IBD and their association with multiyear disease severity. Methods We analyzed metadata derived from curated electronic health records from consented patients with IBD prospectively followed at a tertiary center over a 10-year time period. Patients with IBD with IgG4 serum levels available formed the study population. Demographics and multiyear clinical data were collected and analyzed. We stratified patients with IBD with low, normal, or high serum IgG4 levels. Results We found IgG4 characterized in 1193 patients with IBD and low IgG4 levels in 233 patients (20%) and elevated IgG4 levels in 61 patients (5%). An IgG4 deficiency did not significantly correlate with other antibody deficiencies. In a multiple Poisson regression analysis, low IgG4 was associated with more years on biologic agents (P = 0.002) and steroids (P = 0.049) and more hospital admissions (P < 0.001), clinic visits (P = 0.010), outpatient antibiotic prescriptions (P < 0.001), and CD-related surgeries (P = 0.011) during the study period after controlling for certain confounders. Elevated IgG4 was only associated with primary sclerosing cholangitis (P = 0.011). A cohort of patients with IgG4-deficient severe IBD received intravenous Ig replacement therapy, which benefited and was continued in 10 out of 11 individuals. Conclusions An IgG4 subclass deficiency, distinct from other antibody deficiencies, occurred commonly in a referral IBD population and was associated with multiple markers of disease severity. This is the first association of IgG4 subclass deficiency with an inflammatory disease process. Further work is needed to define the mechanistic role of IgG4 deficiency in this severe IBD subgroup.

8547 Background: Venetoclax (Ven) is a selective, potent BCL-2 inhibitor that has synergistic activity with bortezomib (B) and dexamethasone (d). In the Phase 3 BELLINI trial, addition of Ven to Bd significantly improved median progression-free survival (PFS) and response rates, including minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, but resulted in increased mortality vs placebo (Pbo). Here, we determine whether MRD negativity was associated with longer PFS and OS in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients treated with Ven+Bd in the BELLINI dataset. Methods: In BELLINI (NCT02755597), RRMM patients (pts) sensitive or naïve to proteasome inhibitors with 1-3 prior lines of therapy were randomized 2:1 to Ven (800 mg) or Pbo plus B (1.3 mg/m2) and d (20 mg). Next-gen sequencing MRD assessments were done on bone marrow aspirates at the time of suspected CR/sCR, and 6- and 12-months post confirmation of CR/sCR. Patients with a missing or indeterminate assessment were considered MRD positive. Evaluation of MRD in biomarker-defined subgroups (cytogenetics and BCL2 expression) was also performed and will be presented. Results: In total, 291 pts were randomized; 194 to Ven, 97 to Pbo. As of 13 Sep 2019, the median follow-up was 29 months. Ven + Bd demonstrated significantly higher MRD negativity rates ( < 10−5), including a higher proportion of pts achieving sustained MRD negativity (Table). In the Ven arm, the median (m)PFS was not reached for MRD negative pts vs 16.2 months for MRD positive pts (HR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.10-0.54, p < 0.001). While the mOS was not reached in the Ven arm, OS was significantly longer for MRD negative vs MRD positive pts (HR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.08-0.80, p = 0.0194). Conclusions: The addition of Ven to Bd resulted in deep and durable responses, including higher rates of MRD negativity. MRD negativity in the context of Ven was associated with prolonged survival in patients with RRMM, consistent with the broader MRD body of evidence with other therapies in MM. Clinical trial information: NCT02755597 . [Table: see text]

Background: Overexpression of the anti-apoptotic BCL-2 protein promotes multiple myeloma (MM) cell survival. Venetoclax (Ven) is a highly selective, potent, oral BCL-2 inhibitor that induces apoptosis and has shown synergistic activity with bortezomib (B) and dexamethasone (d). Phase 1 studies in relapsed/refractory (RR) MM demonstrated encouraging clinical efficacy of Ven + d in t(11;14) MM and in a broader patient (pt) population in combination with Bd. Recent results from the Phase 3 BELLINI study of Ven vs placebo (Pbo) + Bd in pts with RRMM demonstrated that pts treated with Ven + Bd had improved clinical response rates and progression-free survival (PFS) vs Pbo, although the overall survival (OS) result was in favor of Pbo. Subgroup analyses showed different efficacy and survival outcomes based on tumor cytogenetics and BCL-2 expression. Results of pre-specified subgroup analyses and additional retrospective correlative biomarker analyses in the Phase 3 BELLINI study are described herein. Methods: BELLINI (NCT02755597) was a randomized, double-blind, multicenter Phase 3 study of Ven or Pbo + Bd in pts with RRMM who received 1-3 prior therapies and were either sensitive or naïve to PIs. Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive Ven 800 mg/day or Pbo + Bd. The following biomarker analyses were performed by central laboratory assessments of pre-treatment tumor samples: BCL-2 protein expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) analysis of bone marrow (BM) core biopsies; BCL2 gene expression by quantitative PCR (qPCR) and cytogenetic abnormalities by interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis of CD138-enriched BM mononuclear cells. Correlation between BCL-2 (protein and gene) expression, cytogenetics, and outcomes were examined by Kruskal-Wallis tests and by hazard ratio (HR) using the Cox proportional hazard model. Results: As of the data cut-off of 18 Mar 2019, 291 pts were randomized, 194 to the Ven arm and 97 to the Pbo arm. Out of the 291 pts randomized, 177 pts (61%) were evaluable by IHC, 257 pts (88%) by qPCR, and 262 pts (90%) by FISH. A broad range of BCL2 gene expression was observed (median 2-DCt: 0.212 [range: 0-5.21]), which strongly correlated with protein expression (median 2-DCt 0.115 in BCL-2 IHC Low vs 0.277 in BCL-2 IHC High, p=0.0021). t(11;14) MM had the highest levels of BCL-2 expression (23/23 BCL-2 High by IHC; median 2-DCt 0.406 vs 0.212 in t(11;14) negative, p=0.0132), however high BCL-2 expression was not limited to the t(11;14) subgroup. Univariate analyses showed higher BCL2 expression in pt tumor samples with del(13q) (median 2-DCt 0.333 vs 0.159 in pts without del(13q), p=0.0008) and gain(1q) (median 2-DCt 0. 295 vs 0.180 in pts without gain(1q), p=0.0059). Bootstrapping and aggregating thresholds from trees (BATTing) was used retrospectively to identify an estimated threshold value for BCL2 expression (2-DCt ≥0.323) that could provide optimum selection of pts with maximum improvement in PFS when treated with Ven+Bd. Biomarker subgroups with the greatest PFS improvement were t(11;14) (HR=0.10; 95% CI: 0.02-0.46, p=0.003) and High BCL2 by qPCR (HR=0.26; 95% CI: 0.13-0.51, p&lt;0.001; Table 1). Since the t(11;14) and High BCL2 patient populations do not completely overlap (20% of High BCL2 pts were t(11;14) and 54% of t(11;14) were High BCL2), a combined subgroup analysis was performed. For pts with t(11;14) or High BCL2, the median PFS was not reached in the Ven arm vs 9.9 mo in Pbo (HR=0.26, 95% CI: 0.14-0.48, p&lt;0.001; Table 1). Higher overall response (ORR, 88% vs 70%), very good partial response or better (≥VGPR, 73% vs 33%), and complete response or better (≥CR, 42% vs 3%) rates were observed in the Ven vs Pbo arm (Table 2). Minimal residual disease negativity (MRD-, 10-5) rate was also higher for t(11;14) or High BCL2 pts in the Ven vs Pbo arm (19% vs 0%). Median overall survival (OS) was not reached in either arm but was similar between treatment arms for the combined group with t(11;14) or High BCL2 pts (HR=0.92, 95% CI=0.39-2.16, p=0.85). In contrast, in the t(11;14) negative and Low BCL2 pts, OS favored Pbo (HR=3.13, 95% CI=1.2-8.13, p=0.019; Table 1). Conclusions: Adding Ven to Bd demonstrates significant efficacy in pts with RRMM harboring either t(11;14) or tumor cells expressing high levels of BCL2. The benefit-risk profile appears to be favorable in these subsets of pts and additional studies to gain further safety and efficacy information are warranted. Disclosures Harrison: GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: investigator on studies, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cavo:celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accommodations, Speakers Bureau; sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; novartis: Honoraria; takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accommodations, Speakers Bureau; bms: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. De La Rubia:AMGEN: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Popat:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: travel support to meetings; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses. Gasparetto:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed . Hungria:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Salwender:Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; AbbVie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations. Suzuki:Ono: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Moreau:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Spencer:AbbVie: 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, Speakers Bureau; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Specialised Therapeutics Australia: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Haemalogix: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. O'Dwyer:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; GlycoMimetics Inc: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Onkimmune: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Garg:Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis, Janssen: Research Funding; Janssen, Takeda, Novartis: Other: Travel expenses. Punnoose:Roche: Other: Stock/stock options; Genentech, Inc.: Employment. Jalaluddin:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Jia:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Yang:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Sun:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Ward:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Maciag:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Ross:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Kumar:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax is a BCL-2 inhibitor that is FDA-approved in some indications. This presentation will focus on venetoclax for treatment of multiple myeloma, which is not an approved indication.

ObjectivePatients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis (AAV) have an elevated risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study was undertaken to develop a clearer understanding of the association between changes in disease activity and lipid levels in AAV, which may inform CVD risk stratification in this population.MethodsLipid levels were assessed in stored serum samples (obtained at baseline and month 6) from the Rituximab for ANCA‐Associated Vasculitis (RAVE) trial, which randomized patients to receive either rituximab or cyclophosphamide followed by azathioprine. Paired t‐tests and multivariable linear regression were used to assess changes in lipid levels.ResultsOf the 142 patients with serum samples available, the mean ± SD age was 52.3 ± 14.7 years, 72 (51%) were male, 95 (67%) were proteinase 3 (PR3)–ANCA positive, 72 (51%) had received a new diagnosis of AAV, and 75 (53%) were treated with rituximab. Several lipid levels increased between baseline and month 6, including total cholesterol (+12.4 mg/dl [95% confidence interval (95% CI) +7.1, +21.0]), low‐density lipoprotein (+10.3 mg/dl [95% CI +6.1, +17.1]), and apolipoprotein B (+3.5 mg/dl [95% CI +1.0, +8.3]). These changes were observed among newly diagnosed and PR3‐ANCA–positive patients but not among those with relapsing disease or myeloperoxidase‐ANCA–positive patients. There was no difference in change in lipid levels between rituximab‐treated patients and cyclophosphamide‐treated patients. Changes in lipid levels correlated with changes in erythrocyte sedimentation rate but not with other inflammatory markers or glucocorticoid exposure.ConclusionLipid levels increased during remission induction among patients with newly diagnosed AAV and those who were PR3‐ANCA positive. Disease activity and ANCA type should be considered when assessing lipid profiles to stratify CVD risk in patients with AAV.

e21004 Background: Pembrolizumab (PEMBRO) and combination ipilimumab + nivolumab (IPI+NIVO) are FDA-approved immunotherapies for advanced melanoma (AM). HRQoL was better maintained with PEMBRO vs IPI in KEYNOTE-006. CheckMate-067 reported no clinically meaningful HRQoL differences with IPI+NIVO vs IPI. As randomized trial data are lacking, we compared HRQoL outcomes in AM between PEMBRO and IPI+NIVO in real-world clinical settings. Methods: A prospective, observational study was conducted with sponsor blinded to sites, and sites blinded to sponsor; nine oncologists from 9 US academic centers and affiliated satellite clinics enrolled AM patients (pts) age ≥18 years initiating first-line PEMBRO or IPI+NIVO between June 2017 – March 2018. The European Organization for the Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core-30 (EORTC QLQ C30) and EQ-5D-5L were administered at baseline and weeks 6, 12, 18, and 24 following therapy. Least squared (LS) mean changes in HRQoL scores from baseline were compared using mixed-effects models for repeated measures, adjusting for baseline covariates. Results: A total of 225 PEMBRO and 187 IPI+NIVO pts were enrolled, with > 95% questionnaire completion rates through week 24. At baseline, PEMBRO pts were more likely > age 65 (49% vs 37%, p = .011), stage IV disease (92% vs 85%; p = .002), and higher comorbidity index (1.0 vs 0.6; p < .001) compared with IPI+NIVO pts. Adjusted EORTC global health status/quality of life (GHS) LS mean changes from baseline showed greater improvement with PEMBRO vs. IPI+NIVO at 12, 18 and 24 weeks. At week 24, PEMBRO pts achieved a 3.3-point improvement (95% CI = 0.8, 5.7) and IPI+NIVO pts had no significant change (1.0, 95% CI = -1.6, 3.5), with a LS mean difference of 2.3 points (p = .037; 95% CI = 0.14, 4.51). At week 24, the EQ-5D visual analogue scale increased 1.0 (95% CI, -1.2, 3.2) for PEMBRO vs IPI+NIVO which decreased 0.9 (95% CI = -3.2, 1.3), with a statistically significant LS mean difference of 2.0 (95% CI = 0.4, 3.9; p = .045). Conclusions: Results from 2 measures suggest HRQoL was maintained vs. baseline in both PEMBRO and IPI+NIVO pts, with a significant between-group difference favoring PEMBRO in GHS over 24 weeks.

9532 Background: Both pembrolizumab (PEMBRO) and combination ipilimumab + nivolumab (IPI+NIVO) are FDA-approved immunotherapies for advanced melanoma (AM). These two treatment regimens have different toxicity profiles which may impact health care resource utilization (HCRU). Our aim was to compare real-world risk of hospitalization and emergency department (ED) visits within 12 months of starting the two treatment regimens. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in patients ≥18 years old with AM initiating PEMBRO or IPI+NIVO between Jan 1, 2016 – Dec 30, 2017. Patients were identified from 12 US academic medical centers and affiliated satellite clinics. Data were abstracted through chart review. All-cause hospitalizations or ED visits and the rates per patient per month (PPPM) through 12 months of follow-up were calculated. Utilization was compared between PEMRBO and IPI+NIVO using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: 400 patients were included, 200 each PEMBRO and IPI+NIVO with mean (SD) follow-up time of 10 (3) and 10 (4) months, respectively. The PEMBRO cohort had poorer Eastern Cooperative Group (ECOG) performance status at treatment start, 71% ECOG 0 or 1 vs 88% (p < .001); more diabetes, 21% vs 13% (p = .045); a trend towards more heart disease, 18% vs 12% (p = .067); were more likely to be PD-L1 expression positive, 77% vs 63% (p = .011); and less likely to harbor a BRAF mutation, 35% vs 50% (p = .003). The proportion with at least one hospitalization through 12 months was 17% PEMBRO vs 24% IPI+NIVO. Less than 2% of patients had more than one admission and none had more than two, regardless of cohort. Unadjusted mean (SD) PPPM hospitalizations were .016 (.037) for PEMBRO and .020 (.038) for IPI+NIVO. The adjusted odds ratio for any hospitalization with PEMBRO was 0.55 (95% CI .31, .97; p = .039) vs. IPI+NIVO. ED visits occurred in 18% vs 21% in PEMBRO and IPI+NIVO respectively, with no difference in covariate-adjusted analysis (p = .147). Conclusions: Patients receiving PEMBRO had a significantly lower probability of hospitalization and similar probability of ER visits compared with IPI+NIVO in the real world through 12 months.