Citations

295 Background: While 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT is approved in the US and recommended by the NCCN, prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT is more common in Europe/Australia and recommended by the EAU. Less is known about the biology of lesions detected by either modality. 18F-fluciclovine PET relies on radiotracer uptake by amino acid transporters LAT1-4 and ASCT1-2. PSMA PET is dependent on surface expression of PSMA. We compared relative expression of PSMA and fluciclovine transporter genes in radical prostatectomy (RP) samples to determine their distribution across subtypes and correlation with outcomes. Methods: Gene expression data of 19,102 RP samples were analyzed using the Affymetrix Human Exon 1.0 ST microarray. 1,135 patients had long term follow up. Associations between expression of PSMA and fluciclovine transporter genes (LAT1-4 and ASCT1-2) and pathologic variables, molecular subtypes, and clinical outcomes were conducted. Results: All fluciclovine transporter genes (LAT 1-4, ASCT1-2) were expressed at lower levels than PSMA (p <0.0001). PSMA expression was positively correlated with genomic risk score and pathologic Gleason score (p<0.0001), but LAT2-3 and ASCT2 were inversely correlated with genomic risk in primary tumors (p<0.0001) and less expressed in GS 9-10 tumors (p<0.0001). PSMA expression was associated with worse metastasis-free survival (MFS) (HR 1.45, p=0.001) and lymph node involvement (HR 2.14, p<0.0001). Expression of LAT2, LAT3, ASCT2 expression was associated with better MFS (HR 0.85, 0.63, 0.74, p<0.0001-0.04). After multivariable adjustment, PSMA expression remained independently prognostic of poorer MFS (HR 1.3, p=0.028). Luminal B subtype was notable for PSMA overexpression; Luminal A was enriched in ASCT2 and LAT2 (p<0.0001). PSMA expression did not correlate with ERG fusion prostate cancers, but LAT2, ASCT1, and ASCT2 were overexpressed in ERG fusion negative tumors (p<0.0001). Conclusions: PSMA expression is associated with more aggressive disease and poorer clinical outcomes than fluciclovine transporter genes in localized prostate cancer. Molecular subtypes of prostate cancer vary in PSMA and fluciclovine transporter gene expression.

276 Background: Decipher is a genomic classifier (GC) that estimates risk of prostate cancer (PCa) distant metastases (DM) post-radical prostatectomy (RP). Herein, we validate the GC within the context of a randomized phase 3 trial. Methods: RP specimens from patients on the NRG/RTOG 9601 phase 3 placebo-controlled randomized trial of salvage radiotherapy (sRT) +/- 2 years of bicalutamide (NCT00002874) were centrally reviewed and the highest-grade tumor underwent RNA extraction. Samples passing quality control (QC) were run on a clinical-grade whole-transcriptome assay to assign the GC score (scale 0-1). Our NCTN-CCSC approved pre-specified statistical plan (NRG-GU-TS002 CSC0075) included the primary objective of validating the ability of the GC to independently prognosticate the cumulative incidence of DM, with secondary endpoints of prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) and overall survival (OS). Results: Of patients with tissue available, 352 passed QC and were included for analysis. The final GC cohort was a representative sample of the overall cohort, with a median follow-up of 13 years. On multivariable analysis, the GC (continuous variable) was independently associated with DM (HR 1.19 [95%CI 1.06-1.35], p=0.003), PCSM (HR 1.37 [95%CI 1.18-1.61], p<0.001), and OS (HR 1.16 [95%CI 1.06-1.28], p=0.002) after adjusting for age, race, Gleason score, T-stage, margin status, entry PSA, and treatment arm. The estimated absolute impact of bicalutamide on 12-year OS was less in patients with lower vs higher GC scores (2.4% vs 8.9%), further demonstrated in men receiving early sRT at PSA <0.7 ng/mL (-2.0% vs 5.0%). Conclusions: This is the first validation of this GC in a prospective randomized trial cohort and demonstrates association of the GC with DM and PCSM independent of standard clinicopathologic variables. The GC may help personalize shared decision-making to weigh the absolute benefit from the addition of bicalutamide to sRT.

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

Background: Maintenance therapy with lenalidomide post-autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS) in multiple myeloma (MM), and has largely become the standard of care. However, toxicity leads to early discontinuation in nearly one-third of patients and additional options are needed (McCarthy, et al, JCO, 2017). Ixazomib is another maintenance option that has been shown to improve PFS; however, studies comparing lenalidomide and ixazomib are lacking. In this randomized phase 2 study, we analyzed the safety and efficacy of using lenalidomide and ixazomib as part of consolidation and maintenance therapies after ASCT (NCT02253316). Methods: Eligible patients, age 18-70 with newly diagnosed MM undergoing ASCT during first-line treatment, were consented prior to ASCT. Approximately 4 months following ASCT, patients received 4 cycles of consolidation therapy with IRd [ixazomib 4 mg on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle, lenalidomide 15 mg on days 1 through 21, and dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8 and 15]. Primary data on IRd consolidation were presented at ASH 2018 (Abstract 109920). One month after the last consolidation cycle, patients were randomized (1:1) to maintenance therapy with single-agent ixazomib (4 mg on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle) or lenalidomide (10 mg daily months 1-3 followed by 15 mg for months 4+). The arms were stratified based on MRD-status post-consolidation. In total, 237 patients were enrolled from 10 US centers. This abstract coincides with planned interim analysis 3 which is the first comparison of ixazomib and lenalidomide maintenance. While the study was not powered to compare PFS between the two arms, the sample will provide a reasonable power to estimate non-inferiority. There is a planned stopping rule for non-inferiority set at a hazard ratio of &gt;1.3 in favor of lenalidomide. Secondary end-points include MRD-negativity following 12 cycles and toxicity. Results: At time of abstract submission, 215 patients had completed IRd consolidation and 191 had begun maintenance. 90 were randomized to ixazomib and 94 to lenalidomide. 7 patients were not randomized due to toxicity during consolidation; data from these patients are not included in the analyses. The characteristics of the two arms are summarized in Table 1. Hematologic toxicity has been infrequent with ixazomib with neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurring in 11% and 23% of patients. In comparison, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 45% and 35% of patients on lenalidomide. The most common non-hematologic toxicities in both arms have been GI-related and infections, both expected events. 16% of patients on ixazomib have experienced Grade 3-4 non-hematologic toxicity compared to 34% on lenalidomide. No grade 3 or higher peripheral neuropathy has been reported in either arm. 11% of patients on ixazomib have discontinued due to toxicity and another 9% have required a dose reduction to 3mg. Lenalidomide toxicity has led to discontinuation in 15% of patients and another 12% were dose reduced to 5mg. Only 45% of patients receiving 4+ cycles of lenalidomide were able to titrate to the 15mg dose. After a median follow-up of 11.2 months from randomization (19.7 months post-ASCT), 30% of patients on ixazomib have discontinued treatment due to disease progression. After a median follow-up of 12.3 months from randomization (20.2 months post-ASCT), 18% patients on lenalidomide have discontinued treatment due to disease progression. Conclusion: Ixazomib and lenalidomide maintenance have been well tolerated to date. A comparison of PFS is currently being conducted as part of interim analysis 3 and final results will be presented, representing the first report directly comparing lenalidomide and ixazomib maintenance. Table 1: Disclosures Vij: Genentech: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria. Martin:Amgen, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Roche and Juno: Consultancy. Fiala:Incyte: Research Funding. Deol:Novartis: Other: Advisory board; Kite: Other: Advisory board; Agios: Other: Advisory board. Kaufman:Celgene: Consultancy; Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University: Employment; Amgen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Hofmeister:Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Nektar: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imbrium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gregory:Poseida: Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau. 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. Chari:Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Oncoceutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosko:Vyxeos: Other: Travel support.

MDJ and MTJ contributed equally; FLL and AG contributed equally. Introduction Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) are autologous anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapies approved for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) who have failed at least two lines of systemic therapy. In the ZUMA-1 trial that led to axi-cel approval, the median time between apheresis and delivery of CAR T cells to the treating facility was 17 days (Neelapu, Locke et al. NEJM 2018). Bridging therapy, defined as lymphoma therapy given between apheresis and the start of lymphodepleting chemotherapy, was not permitted on ZUMA-1. By contrast, the pivotal JULIET trial for tisa-cel (Schuster et al. NEJM 2019) had a median time from enrollment to infusion of 54 days and 92% of patients received bridging therapy. Whether bridging therapy affects lymphoma CAR T outcomes is unknown. Here we evaluate patients receiving bridging therapy for axi-cel in a large multicenter cohort. Methods and Results The US Lymphoma CAR T Consortium includes seventeen US academic centers that contribute data from lymphoma patients treated with standard of care (SOC) CAR T-cell therapy independently of manufacturers. As of 8/31/2018, 300 patients were apheresed with intent to manufacture SOC axi-cel for LBCL. Of the 23 patients that underwent apheresis for axi-cel and did not receive it, 20 had lymphoma progression or death that precluded CAR T infusion, of which 16 received bridging therapy. In this study, we analyze the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population of 276 patients receiving CAR T infusion with a median follow up of 9 months. In this group, 146 (53%) patients received bridging therapy while 130 (47%) patients received no bridging therapy. Bridging therapy consisted of steroids alone (n = 35, 24%), chemotherapy (n = 73, 50%), radiation (n = 24, 16%), or targeted therapies (n = 14, 10%). At baseline, a higher proportion of patients in the bridging therapy group had an ECOG score of 2 - 4 vs. 0 - 1 (bridging 24.8%, no bridging 6.1%, p &lt;0.001), IPI score of 3 -5 vs. 0 - 2 (bridging 67.6%, no bridging 34.3%, p &lt;0.001), bulky disease greater than 10 cm (28.2% vs. 13.0%, p = 0.002), immunohistochemical double expression of MYC and BCL2 (42.5% vs. 24.6%, p =0.004) and would not have met all the eligibility criteria for ZUMA-1 for reasons other than bridging therapy (48.6% vs. 30.0%, p = 0.002). After axi-cel infusion, patients in the bridging group had similar rates of severe (grade 3 or higher) cytokine release syndrome (CRS) (8.2% vs. 5.3%, p = 0.34) and ICANS (35.2% vs. 28.2%, p = 0.25). However, the rate of ICU admission was higher in the bridging group (41.4% vs. 22.9%, p = 0.001) as was median length of hospital stay (15 vs. 14 days, p = 0.02). While data on cytopenias was not collected, use of G-CSF after CAR T therapy was higher in the bridging group (48.2% vs. 32.1%, p = 0.006). In terms of outcomes, in multivariate analysis correcting for confounding features, there was no statistically significant difference in overall response rate (p = 0.2), complete response rate (p = 0.19), and progression free survival (p = 0.3) between bridging and no bridging groups; but bridging therapy was associated with significantly poorer overall survival (p = 0.001) and lymphoma specific survival (p = 0.019) (figure 1.). Both death due to lymphoma (33.1% vs. 13.0%) and death due to treatment-related mortality (TRM) (6.9% vs. 1.5%) were higher in the bridging group (p &lt;0.001). Conclusions Lymphoma patients receiving bridging therapy had poorer prognostic factors at baseline and after axi-cel infusion experienced decreased lymphoma-specific and overall survival compared with patients with no bridging. This inferior outcome raises the possibility that bridging therapy may identify a sub-group of lymphoma patients with a different biology, or alternatively, bridging therapy may have an effect on the host or the tumor microenvironment that may impact CAR-T efficacy. With or without bridging, 7% of patients in our series did not receive axi-cel due to lymphoma progression and/or death. In addition, there may have been patients where bridging prevented progression or death prior to axi-cel infusion. Prospective evaluation of different bridging strategies is warranted to determine if any can improve outcomes after axi-cel, and/or if they should be utilized only for patients requiring emergent disease control during the manufacture period. Disclosures Jain: Kite/Gilead: Consultancy. Nastoupil:Bayer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria. Lin:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Juno: 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; BlueBird Bio: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sorrento: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lunning:Curis: Research Funding; Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; MiRagen: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; DAVA: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; OncLive: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; VANIUM: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy. Reagan:Kite, A Gilead Company: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Oluwole:Pfizer: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. McGuirk:Juno Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Pluristem Ltd: Research Funding; ArticulateScience LLC: Other: Assistance with manuscript preparation. Deol:Novartis: Other: Advisory board; Kite: Other: Advisory board; Agios: Other: Advisory board. Goy:University of Nebraska: Research Funding; Hakensackumc: Research Funding; Astrazenca: 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; Hackensack University Medical Center, RCCA: Employment; Genentech: Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work; Takeda: Other: Grants outside of the submitted work; COTA: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: leadership role for profit healthcare company. Hill:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Munoz:Kyowa: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Fosunkite: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Portola: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics /Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy. Chavez:Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Speakers Bureau. Vose:Acerta Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Grants, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Grants, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Legend Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Miklos:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite-Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AlloGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Precision Bioscience: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Miltenyi Biotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Becton Dickinson: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Neelapu:Cellectis: Research Funding; Allogene: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Karus: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy. Bennani:Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board. Andreadis:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Roche: Equity Ownership; Celgene: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Employment; Merck: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy. Sehgal:Juno/Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding. Locke:Novartis: Other: Scientific Advisor; Kite: Other: Scientific Advisor; Cellular BioMedicine Group Inc.: Consultancy.

Background: Standard treatment for catheter-associated upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) is anticoagulation. If catheter removal is otherwise indicated, it is unknown if catheter removal close to the time of initiation of anticoagulation is associated with a higher incidence of pulmonary embolization. Methods: A multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed at 8 participating institutions through the Venous thromboEmbolism Network US (VENUS). ICD-9/10 codes were used to identify patients with hematologic malignancies and upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) from 1/1/2010 through 12/31/2016. Identified patients underwent medical record review to verify diagnostic codes and determine if a catheter was associated with the upper extremity DVT and assess for outcomes. Patients were excluded if the UEDVT was not catheter provoked or if there were associated lower extremity DVT and/or pulmonary emboli. The anticoagulant start and finish date as well as the timing of the catheter removal, total follow up, and death were recorded. Patients started on anticoagulation at the time of their diagnosis were divided into two groups: 1) anticoagulation with delayed (&gt; 48 hrs) or no catheter removal and 2) anticoagulation with early catheter removal (&lt; 48 hrs). Outcomes were also assessed in patients with no anticoagulation initiation but catheter removal as the only treatment. The primary outcome was clinically identified pulmonary emboli within 7 days and the secondary outcome was pulmonary emboli or death from any cause within 7 days. Baseline characteristics were compared between groups using Χ2 for categorical variables, 2-tailed t-tests for continuous variables, and Wilcoxon rank-sum for nonparametric continuous variables. Fisher's exact test was used to evaluate the primary and secondary outcomes. Results: 663 patients with hematologic malignancies and isolated catheter-associated UEDVT underwent chart review. 512 patients were treated with anticoagulation of which 312 underwent early catheter removal while 200 had delayed or no catheter removal (Figure 1). 151 patients received no anticoagulation and 119 underwent catheter removal alone as the treatment for the DVT. Among patients who were treated with anticoagulation, the mean age was 52.6 years and 44% were male; age and sex did not differ between patients with early vs. delayed or no catheter removal (Table 1). Type of hematologic malignancy, type of central catheter, and DVT location were significantly different between groups. Patients with PICC lines were more likely to have early catheter removal (71% vs. 49%). The median platelet count was not significantly different among patients treated with anticoagulation, but was lower in patients treated with catheter removal only. Most patients were initially treated with low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) and anticoagulation treatment did not differ between groups. Pulmonary emboli within 7 days occurred in 2 patients (0.64%) with early catheter removal compared to 1 patient (0.5%) with delayed or no removal (p=1.0). Pulmonary emboli or any cause death within 7 days occurred in 3 patients (1.0%) with early removal compared to 3 patients (1.5%) with delayed or no removal (p=0.68). In patients treated with catheter removal only (no anticoagulation), there were no pulmonary emboli within 7 days and 3 deaths. All 3 patients with pulmonary emboli within 7 days had PICC lines and leukemia/MDS and the sites of most proximal DVT involvement were brachiocephalic veins (2 patients) and subclavian vein (1 patient). Conclusions: In patients with hematological malignancy and catheter-associated UEDVT, removal of catheters within 48 hours was not associated with increased risk of pulmonary emboli compared to delayed or no removal. Disclosures Billett: Albert Einstein College of Medicine: Patents & Royalties: Patent application pending for NETs AI software. Gaddh:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hema Biologics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics LLC: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Oo:Medical Education Speakers Network: Honoraria; Janssen and Janssen: Other: Research: site co-investigator . Jaglal:NOVARTIS: Consultancy. Streiff:Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Portola: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding. Baumann Kreuziger:Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Consultancy; CSL Behring: Consultancy.

571 Background: Tumor-induced generation of splenic erythroblast- like cells (Ter-cells) has been shown to promote tumor progression. These Ter-cells produce the glial-line derived neurotropic factor, ARTN. We investigated the association of pre-operative serum ARTN and the risk of recurrence in HCC patients (pts) undergoing curative resection. Methods: Blood samples were collected prior to surgery as part of an institutional molecular epidemiologic study. Serum ARTN concentration was measured using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Demographics, pathological variables known to be associated with outcomes and clinical outcomes were collected. Uni- and multi-variate analysis were conducted. The optimal cutpoint method was used to define high and low ARTN concentrations. Cox models (hazard ratios, HR) were used to compare progression-free (PFS, primary endpoint), and overall survival (OS) of pts with high vs low serum ARTN. Results: Pre-operative blood samples were available for 58 pts. Median age was 63 years (range: 25-85 years); 74% were male and 50% were Asian. Etiology of liver disease was hepatitis B (43%) and hepatitis C (22%); 43% of tumors were ≤5cm, and vascular invasion was seen in 62%. A baseline alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) of > 100 mcg/L was observed in 36% pts. Median follow-up was 18.9 months. Median ARTN concentration was 0.322 ng/mL. The optimal ARTN concentration cut-off was 0.206 ng/mL. Median PFS for pts with high ( > 0.206 ng/mL) vs low (≤0.206 ng/mL) ARTN was 15.7 vs 55 months (p = 0.04) respectively. Three year PFS was 34% vs 55%, and three year OS 54% vs 91% for high vs low groups. Univariate analysis found that high ARTN concentration (HR 2.44, p = 0.05) and multifocal tumors were associated with a worse PFS. In a multivariate analysis adjusted for AFP > 100mcg/L, vascular invasion, hepatitis status and multifocal tumors, high ARTN remained a negative prognostic factor for PFS, aHR 3.32 (95% CI: 1.22-9.05, p = 0.02). Conclusions: A high pre-surgery serum ARTN is associated with earlier recurrence in HCC pts undergoing curative resection. ARTN should be further studied in HCC to determine its value as a prognostic marker.

BackgroundThe progression of prostate cancer is a complex, multistep process that involves molecular alterations in cells of the tumor and the microenvironment, with associated interactions between the stroma and epithelium. Genomic expression analyses of stromal infiltration markers were performed to determine the significance thereof in prostate cancer.MethodsGenome‐wide expression profiles of formalin‐fixed, paraffin‐embedded radical prostatectomy samples were evaluated from a prospective registry cohort (n = 5239) and 3 retrospective institutional cohorts (n = 1135). Two independent stromal gene expression signatures implied stromal infiltration. Cox proportional hazards regression defined the association between stromal infiltration expression and metastasis‐free survival (MFS).ResultsStromal expression scores were correlated with stromal signature genes and with other key stromal markers (CAV1, VIM, and TAGLN), basal activity, and CD3 and CD4 immune biomarkers (r > 0.5 for all). The top decile of stromal expression was associated with high genomic risk scores (Decipher ≥ 0.6) , high Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment–Postsurgical scores, Gleason 9 to 10 disease, and a higher risk for metastasis (hazard ratio, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.37‐4.02; P = .001). A higher stromal infiltration score was also associated with decreased expression of DNA repair genes and higher radiation sensitivity genomic scores. Postoperative radiation therapy (RT) was associated with an MFS benefit for patients with high stromal scores, but not for patients with low stromal scores (Pinteraction = .02).ConclusionsExpression of stromal infiltration markers is correlated with prostate cancer aggressiveness/progression and may be predictive of a response to RT. Stromal infiltration markers should be studied and considered for incorporation into clinical prognostication and decision making.

With the development of modern solid-phase assays to detect anti-HLA antibodies and a more precise histological classification, the diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) has become more common and is a major cause of kidney graft loss. Currently, there are no approved therapies and treatment guidelines are based on low-level evidence. The number of prospective randomized trials for the treatment of AMR is small, and the lack of an accepted common standard for care has been an impediment to the development of new therapies. To help alleviate this, The Transplantation Society convened a meeting of international experts to develop a consensus as to what is appropriate treatment for active and chronic active AMR. The aim was to reach a consensus for standard of care treatment against which new therapies could be evaluated. At the meeting, the underlying biology of AMR, the criteria for diagnosis, the clinical phenotypes, and outcomes were discussed. The evidence for different treatments was reviewed, and a consensus for what is acceptable standard of care for the treatment of active and chronic active AMR was presented. While it was agreed that the aims of treatment are to preserve renal function, reduce histological injury, and reduce the titer of donor-specific antibody, there was no conclusive evidence to support any specific therapy. As a result, the treatment recommendations are largely based on expert opinion. It is acknowledged that properly conducted and powered clinical trials of biologically plausible agents are urgently needed to improve patient outcomes.