Citations

21046 Background: The Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) is a transmembrane receptor tyrosine kinase that is important for colon cancer cell growth and represents a therapeutic target. We studied EGFR expression in relation to rates of apoptosis and cell proliferation. Methods: TNM stage II and III colon carcinomas (n= 361) from patients treated in a 5-FU-based adjuvant trial were studied. EGFR expression (EGFR pharmDx™) and extent were analyzed and their relationship to rates of cell turnover, histologic grade, mismatch repair (MMR) status (defective if instability at BAT 26 locus plus loss of hMLH1, hMSH2 or hMSH6 proteins) and clinical outcome were determined. Results: EGFR plasma membrane staining was detected in 214 (59.3 %) colon carcinomas. Increased EGFR intensity (2+, 3+) was associated with a higher number of caspase-3- (p= 0.02) and Ki-67- (p< 0.001)positive tumor cells. Increased EGFR intensity (p= 0.02) and extent (p= 0.03) were associated with poor differentiation, and did not depend upon MMR status (Breslow-Day test p ≥ 0.46). Diffuse (vs. focal) EGFR extent was increased in tumors with defective MMR [22 of 32 (69%)] compared to those with intact MMR [136 of 271 (50%)] (p= 0.047). EGFR intensity was unrelated to MMR status. Neither EGFR intensity nor extent was significantly associated with patient survival. Conclusions: Stage II and III colon cancers with EGFR overexpression show adverse prognostic variables, i.e., increased rates of cell turnover and poor histologic grade, suggesting that EGFR may be an important target for adjuvant therapy. *Chi-square test for categorical data, Wilcoxin rank-sum test for continuous data [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

10529 Background: BAX mutations are associated with defective DNA mismatch repair (MMR) in human colon cancers. However, the impact of BAX inactivation upon tumor cell apoptosis and proliferation in vivo remain unknown. We analyzed and compared caspase-3 and Ki-67 expression in tumors with and without BAX mutations. Methods: TNM stage II and III (n= 377) colon carcinomas were studied from participants in a 5-FU-based adjuvant therapy trial. Archival tumors were analyzed for instability at the BAT26 mononucleotide locus using polymerase chain reaction and hMLH1, hMSH2 and hMSH6 by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Frameshift mutations in a tract of eight deoxyguanosines within BAX were analyzed. Expression of caspase-3 and Ki-67 proteins were analyzed by IHC. Results: Thirty-nine of 377 (10%) tumors showed defective MMR defined as instability at BAT26 and loss of either hMLH1, hMSH2 and/or hMSH6 proteins. BAX mutations were found in 20 of 37 (54%) MMR deficient tumors and in 1 of 50 (2%) tumors with intact MMR. Mean and median number of caspase-3-positive cells were increased in tumors with defective MMR (p= 0.04), but did not differ based upon BAX status [ Table ]. However, tumors with BAX mutations showed higher Ki-67 labeling indices compared to those with wild type BAX (p= 0.01)[ Table ]. Neither BAX mutations nor caspase-3- positive cells were prognostic in a univariate analysis. Tumors with lower Ki-67 extent had improved overall survival (p=0.06), but not DFS (p=0.24). Defective MMR (vs intact) was associated with better DFS in a multivariate analysis (p= 0.03). Conclusion: MMR deficient colon cancers show frequent BAX inactivation, yet have increased apoptotic rates as indicated by increased caspase-3 expressing tumor cells. BAX mutation was associated with hyperproliferation suggesting a growth advantage compared to wild type tumors. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

8530 Background: RAD-001 (Everolimus) is an oral inhibitor of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR). Interim analysis results from a phase II study of RAD-001 in patients with metastatic melanoma (MM) were presented at ASCO 2005. This study was re-opened using a higher dose based on an improvement in the 16 week progression free survival (PFS) rate and good tolerability. Methods: A two- stage, phase II multi-institutional trial was conducted in patients with MM to assess that 16 weeks PFS rate was at least 50%. Inclusion criteria: measurable disease, ECOG performance score of 0–2. Exclusion criteria: presence of intracranial metastases, concurrent use of inducers of cytochrome 3A4 and abnormal organ function. The dose of RAD-001 in the second cohort was increased to 10 mg daily (increased from 30 mg weekly) based on evidence of safety of the higher dose. Results: Twenty-nine patients were enrolled; baseline information is available on 27. Median age was 63 yrs; 15 (56%) had >2 sites of metastatic disease. Most (48%) had stage M1c disease. PS was 0, 1 and 2 in 58%, 38% and 4%. All but 4 (15%) had received prior therapy. Grade 3 adverse events included stomatitis and fatigue (2 each), leukopenia, neutropenia, diarrhea, anorexia, dehydration, dyspnea, hyperglycemia, and hypersensitivity (1 each). Planned interim analysis was done after 20 patients were enrolled. 14 (70%) had progressed 16 weeks, failing to meet the decision rule needed (PFS >30%) to restart accrual. The median PFS for all 29 patients was 56 days. The median overall survival (OS) has not been reached. For the entire cohort of 53 pts treated on this study (at both dose levels), the median PFS, median OS were 59 and 286 days respectively. Conclusion: Interim analysis after enrollment of 20 patients at a higher dose of RAD-001 demonstrated significantly more toxicity and no added clinical efficacy. The 16 week PFS rate target was not reached, and accrual was suspended. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Background and Aims Compared to other chronic diseases, patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) have significantly higher inpatient mortality; accurate models to predict inpatient mortality are lacking. Serum lactate (LA) may be elevated in patients with CLD due to both tissue hypoperfusion as well as decreased LA clearance. We hypothesized that a parsimonious model consisting of Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD) and LA at admission may predict inpatient mortality in patients with CLD. Approach and Results We examined all patients with CLD in two large and diverse health care systems in Texas (North Texas [NTX] and Central Texas [CTX]) between 2010 and 2015. We developed (n = 3,588) and validated (n = 1,804) a model containing MELD and LA measured at the time of hospitalization. We further validated the model in a second cohort of 14 tertiary care hepatology centers that prospectively enrolled nonelective hospitalized patients with cirrhosis (n = 726). MELD‐LA was an excellent predictor of inpatient mortality in development (concordance statistic [C‐statistic] = 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79‐0.82) and both validation cohorts (CTX cohort, C‐statistic = 0.85, 95% CI 0.78‐0.87; multicenter cohort C‐statistic = 0.82, 95% CI 0.74‐0.88). MELD‐LA performed especially well in patients with specific cirrhosis diagnoses (C‐statistic = 0.84, 95% CI 0.81‐0.86) or sepsis (C‐statistic = 0.80, 95% CI 0.78‐0.82). For MELD score 25, inpatient mortality rates were 11.2% (LA = 1 mmol/L), 19.4% (LA = 3 mmol/L), 34.3% (LA = 5 mmol/L), and >50% (LA > 8 mmol/L). A linear increase (P < 0.01) was seen in MELD‐LA and increasing number of organ failures. Overall, use of MELD‐LA improved the risk prediction in 23.5% of patients compared to MELD alone. Conclusions MELD‐LA (bswh.md/meldla) is an early and objective predictor of inpatient mortality and may serve as a model for risk assessment and guide therapeutic options.

TPS760 Background: First-line treatment of mRCC has rapidly changed to include IPI-NIVO or CABO, with clinical benefit of each based on the Checkmate 214 and CABOSUN trials. Combination immunotherapy with VEGF therapies have shown benefit in the JAVELIN 101 and KEYNOTE 426 trials over sunitinib. It is yet unclear which patients (pts) benefit most from combination immunotherapy-VEGF inhibitors, and the optimal sequence of drugs. Methods: In an adaptive, randomized, multicenter, phase 3 trial (Alliance A031704, PDIGREE), pts start treatment with induction IPI 1mg/kg and NIVO 3mg/kg intravenously (IV) once every 3 weeks. Key inclusion criteria include clear cell mRCC, IMDC intermediate or poor risk, Karnofsky performance status >70, and no prior treatments for mRCC. Based on 3-month radiographic assessment (after completing IPI-NIVO combination), pts with complete responses (CR) undergo maintenance NIVO 480mg IV every 4 weeks, pts with progression of disease (PD) switch to CABO 60mg oral daily, and pts with non-CR/non-PD are randomized to NIVO 480mg IV every 4 weeks versus NIVO 480mg IV every 4 weeks with CABO 40mg oral daily. Randomization is stratified by IMDC risk criteria and presence of bone metastases. The primary endpoint of the study is overall survival (OS). We hypothesize that 3-year OS rate will improve to 70% for NIVO-CABO compared to 60% for NIVO alone; to achieve 85% power with a two-sided alpha of 0.05 and exponential distribution, 696 patients will be randomized. Accounting for 30% patients with either CR or PD, and 5% dropout from toxicity, up to 1046 pts will be enrolled. Key secondary endpoints include PFS, 12-month CR rate, ORR based on RECIST 1.1 and irRECIST criteria, and toxicity profiles. Quality of life will be assessed based on the FKSI-19, PROMIS-fatigue, and EQ5D-5L questionnaires. Biomarkers associated with CR and association of IL-6 with treatment benefit will be assessed. Other tissue-based and plasma-based biomarkers are planned. Updated enrollment will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT03793166.

PURPOSE Radiation dose to the neuroregenerative zone of the hippocampus has been found to be associated with cognitive toxicity. Hippocampal avoidance (HA) using intensity-modulated radiotherapy during whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) is hypothesized to preserve cognition. METHODS This phase III trial enrolled adult patients with brain metastases to HA-WBRT plus memantine or WBRT plus memantine. The primary end point was time to cognitive function failure, defined as decline using the reliable change index on at least one of the cognitive tests. Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), intracranial progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, and patient-reported symptom burden. RESULTS Between July 2015 and March 2018, 518 patients were randomly assigned. Median follow-up for alive patients was 7.9 months. Risk of cognitive failure was significantly lower after HA-WBRT plus memantine versus WBRT plus memantine (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.95; P = .02). This difference was attributable to less deterioration in executive function at 4 months (23.3% v 40.4%; P = .01) and learning and memory at 6 months (11.5% v 24.7% [ P = .049] and 16.4% v 33.3% [ P = .02], respectively). Treatment arms did not differ significantly in OS, intracranial PFS, or toxicity. At 6 months, using all data, patients who received HA-WBRT plus memantine reported less fatigue ( P = .04), less difficulty with remembering things ( P = .01), and less difficulty with speaking ( P = .049) and using imputed data, less interference of neurologic symptoms in daily activities ( P = .008) and fewer cognitive symptoms ( P = .01). CONCLUSION HA-WBRT plus memantine better preserves cognitive function and patient-reported symptoms, with no difference in intracranial PFS and OS, and should be considered a standard of care for patients with good performance status who plan to receive WBRT for brain metastases with no metastases in the HA region.

Introduction: Hypomethylating agents (HMAs) such as decitabine (DEC) or azacitidine (AZA) are FDA approved therapies for patients with different myeloid malignancies as single agent or in combination with venetoclax. Both DEC and AZA require IV infusion for 1 hour or subcutaneous (SC) injections daily for 5-7 days of every 28-day treatment cycle. They both have limited oral bioavailability due to rapid degradation by cytidine deaminase (CDA) in the gut and liver. An orally bioavailable HMA option could reduce clinic visit frequency and reduce infusions/injections related adverse events and burden. ASTX727 is an oral tablet comprised of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of CDA inhibitor cedazuridine (C) at 100 mg with DEC at 35 mg. In a phase 2 study, C-DEC (ASTX727) demonstrated pharmacokinetic (PK) AUC exposure similar to IV-DEC at 20mg/m2 with comparable clinical activity and safety (Garcia-Manero, et al, 15th Int'l MDS Symposium, 2019). We describe here the results of a phase 3 study designed to demonstrate exposure bioequivalence of oral C-DEC and IV-DEC and generate clinical data using C-DEC in a larger population (ASCERTAIN study). Methods: The study used a randomized cross over design where patients were randomized 1:1 to either Sequence A: C-DEC (100 mg/35 mg respectively) in Cycle 1 followed by IV-DEC at 20 mg/m2 in Cycle 2, or Sequence B receiving IV-DEC in Cycle 1 followed by C-DEC on Cycle 2 to compare PK (primary endpoint AUC equivalence over 5 days of dosing) and pharmacodynamic (PD) of DNA demethylation using LINE-1 assay. All patients received C-DEC in all subsequent cycles from Cycle 3 onwards until treatment discontinuation to study clinical efficacy and safety of C-DEC. Patients were eligible as per the FDA-approved label (MDS IPSS Intermediate [Int]-1,-2 or high risk[HR] and CMML patients). Clinical responses were assessed by an independent expert panel according to International Working Group (IWG) 2006 response criteria. Adverse events (AEs) were graded by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v 4.03. Results: 138 patients were randomized, of whom 133 were treated with median age of 71.0 years (range 44-88), median weight was 83.1 kg (range 45-158), and median BSA was 1.99 m2 (range 1.4-2.9 m2). The IPSS status of the patients were Int-1 in 44%, Int-2 in 20%, and HR in 16%, and 12% of pts had CMML. Patients in the two arms were well balanced regarding cytogenetic risk, baseline hemoglobin, neutrophils, platelets, or red blood cell or platelet transfusion dependence. For the primary end point, the decitabine AUC0-24 (h*ng/mL) 5-Day geometric mean estimate was 856 from the C-DEC and 865 from IV-DEC resulting in an oral/IV AUC ratio of 98.9% (90% CI of 92.7-105.6%). All sensitivity and secondary exposure analyses confirmed the primary results. Comparison of hypomethylating activity as measured by LINE-1 demethylation showed difference between oral C-DEC and IV-DEC demethylation of &lt;1% and the 95% CI of the difference included zero. Safety findings were consistent with those anticipated for IV-DEC (related Grade ≥ 3 AEs in more than 5% were thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, anemia, febrile neutropenia, and leukopenia). As of the data cutoff, median follow up was 5.2 months ( IQR 3.5-8.0) with 101 patients evaluable for response . Preliminary response analysis of all evaluable patients showed best responses of complete response (CR) in 12 patients (11.9%), marrow (m)CR in 46 (45.5%) including 14 patients (13.9%) with mCR + hematological improvement (HI), hematologic improvement (HI) in 7 (6.9%) resulting in an objective response rate (CR+mCR+ HI) in 65 patients (64%). In addition, of all 133 treated patients, 16 patients (12%) underwent hematopoietic cell transplant. Updated response data will be presented at the meeting. Summary/Conclusions: This randomized phase 3 study demonstrates that C-DEC, the oral FDC of cedazuridine/decitabine (100 mg/35 mg) resulted in an equivalent DEC exposure to IV-DEC at 20 mg/m2 over 5 days. Safety findings are consistent with those anticipated with IV-DEC with no clinically significant GI toxicity. Preliminary clinical activity is also consistent with published data from IV-DEC. C-DEC is an oral HMA alternative to IV-DEC. Combination studies with other oral agents are being planned. Disclosures Garcia-Manero: Amphivena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Griffiths:New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Astex Phramaceuticals/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Persimmune: Consultancy; Boston Scientific: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Novartis Inc.: Consultancy; Novartis Inc.: Consultancy; Partner Therapeutics: Consultancy; Astex Phramaceuticals/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova Therapeutics: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Celgene, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie, Inc.: Consultancy; Celgene, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Persimmune: Consultancy; Partner Therapeutics: Consultancy; Boston Scientific: Consultancy; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Onconova Therapeutics: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Abbvie, Inc.: Consultancy, PI on a clinical trial; Appelis Pharmaceuticals: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Appelis Pharmaceuticals: Other: PI on a clinical trial. Yee:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Zeidan:Ariad: Honoraria; Acceleron Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Medimmune/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Astellas: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Cardinal Health: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; BeyondSpring: Honoraria; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Trovagene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria. Al-Kali:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Dao:Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Patel:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Dava Oncology: Honoraria; France Foundation: Honoraria. Sabloff:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ASTX: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi Canada: Research Funding; Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer Canada: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas Pharma Canada: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Keating:Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hoffman La Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria. Fazal:Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Odenike:AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; CTI/Baxalta: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Oncotherapy: Research Funding. DeZern:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. O'Connell:Astex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shionogi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Roboz:Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orsenix: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Otsuka: 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; Trovagene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eisai: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amphivena: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Argenx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Oganesian:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Hao:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Keer:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Savona:Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Patents & Royalties; Sunesis: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background Although rituximab‐based high‐dose therapy is frequently used in diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto‐HCT), data supporting the benefits are not available. Herein, we report the impact of rituximab‐based conditioning on auto‐HCT outcomes in patients who have DLBCL. Methods Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) registry, 862 adult DLBCL patients undergoing auto‐HCT between 2003 and 2017 using BEAM (BCNU, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) conditioning regimen were included. All patients received frontline rituximab‐containing chemoimmunotherapy and had chemosensitive disease pre‐HCT. Early chemoimmunotherapy failure was defined as not achieving complete remission (CR) after frontline chemoimmunotherapy or relapse within 1 year of initial diagnosis. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Results The study cohort was divided into 2 groups: BEAM (n = 667) and R‐BEAM (n = 195). On multivariate analysis, no significant difference was seen in OS ( P = .83) or progression‐free survival (PFS) ( P = .61) across the 2 cohorts. No significant association between the use of rituximab and risk of relapse ( P = .15) or nonrelapse mortality ( P = .12) was observed. Variables independently associated with lower OS included older age at auto‐HCT ( P < .001), absence of CR at auto‐HCT ( P < .001) and early chemoimmunotherapy failure ( P < .001). Older age ( P < .0002) and non‐CR pre‐HCT ( P < .0001) were also associated with inferior PFS. There was no significant difference in early infectious complications between the 2 cohorts. Conclusion In this large registry analysis of DLBCL patients undergoing auto‐HCT, the addition of rituximab to the BEAM conditioning regimen had no impact on transplantation outcomes. Older age, absence of CR pre auto‐HCT, and early chemoimmunotherapy failure were associated with inferior survival.

The automated low‐flow ascites pump (alfapump) is an implantable device that drains ascites directly into the urinary bladder. We studied its safety (absence of serious complications) and efficacy (decreased large‐volume paracentesis [LVP] requirement and improved quality of life [QoL]) in the management of ascites in a cohort of North American patients with cirrhosis and recurrent ascites ineligible for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). QoL was measured by the Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire (CLDQ) and Ascites Questionnaire (Ascites Q). Following alfapump implantation, patients were monitored for ascites control, laboratory abnormalities, QoL, adverse events, and survival at 12 months. A total of 30 patients (60.0 ± 9.9 years; 57% male; Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease score, 11.4 ± 2.7) received an alfapump, mostly by an interventional radiology approach (97%), followed by longterm prophylactic antibiotics. The alfapump removed a mean ascites volume of 230.6 ± 148.9 L/patient at 12 months, dramatically reducing the mean LVP frequency from 2.4 ± 1.4/patient/month before pump implantation to 0.2 ± 0.4/patient/month after pump implantation. All surviving patients had improved QoL (baseline versus 3 months; CLDQ, 3.9 ± 1.21 versus 5.0 ± 1.0; Ascites Q, 51.7 ± 21.9 versus 26.7 ± 18.6; P < 0.001 for both) and a better biochemical index of nutritional status (prealbumin 87.8 ± 37.5 versus 102.9 ± 45.3 mg/L at 3 months; P = 0.04). Bacterial infections (15 events in 13 patients), electrolyte abnormalities (11 events in 6 patients), and renal complications (11 events in 9 patients) were the most common severe adverse events. By 12 months, 4 patients died from complications of cirrhosis. Alfapump insertion may be a definitive treatment for refractory ascites in cirrhosis, especially in patients who are not TIPS candidates.

Abstract A commercial automated continuous-flow procedure for estimating specific serum proteins has been evaluated for use in determination of IgG, IgA, IgM (both 19S and 7S), α1-antitrypsin, and cerebrospinal fluid proteins. Results of the automated procedure correlate well with manual methods, but are much more precise. Estimation of 7S IgM by the automated method is more accurate than estimation by radial immunodiffusion, because concentrations of 7S IgM are not spuriously elevated.