Citations

Rationale: GWAS (Genome-Wide Association Studies) have identified hundreds of genetic loci associated with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, these loci explain only a small proportion of AF heritability. Objective: To develop an approach to identify additional AF-related genes by integrating multiple omics data. Methods and Results: Three types of omics data were integrated: (1) summary statistics from the AFGen 2017 GWAS; (2) a whole blood EWAS (Epigenome-Wide Association Study) of AF; and (3) a whole blood TWAS (Transcriptome-Wide Association Study) of AF. The variant-level GWAS results were collapsed into gene-level associations using fast set-based association analysis. The CpG-level EWAS results were also collapsed into gene-level associations by an adapted SNP-set Kernel Association Test approach. Both GWAS and EWAS gene-based associations were then meta-analyzed with TWAS using a fixed-effects model weighted by the sample size of each data set. A tissue-specific network was subsequently constructed using the NetWAS (Network-Wide Association Study). The identified genes were then compared with the AFGen 2018 GWAS that contained more than triple the number of AF cases compared with AFGen 2017 GWAS. We observed that the multiomics approach identified many more relevant AF-related genes than using AFGen 2018 GWAS alone (1931 versus 206 genes). Many of these genes are involved in the development and regulation of heart- and muscle-related biological processes. Moreover, the gene set identified by multiomics approach explained much more AF variance than those identified by GWAS alone (10.4% versus 3.5%). Conclusions: We developed a strategy to integrate multiple omics data to identify AF-related genes. Our integrative approach may be useful to improve the power of traditional GWAS, which might be particularly useful for rare traits and diseases with limited sample size.

Catheter ablation has brought major advances in the management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). As evidenced by multiple randomized trials, AF catheter ablation can reduce the risk of recurrent AF and improve quality of life. In some studies, AF ablation significantly reduced cardiovascular hospitalizations. Despite the existing data on AF catheter ablation, numerous knowledge gaps remain concerning this intervention. This report is based on a recent virtual workshop convened by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to identify key research opportunities in AF ablation. We outline knowledge gaps related to emerging technologies, the relationship between cardiac structure and function and the success of AF ablation in patient subgroups in whom clinical benefit from ablation varies, and potential platforms to advance clinical research in this area. This report also considers the potential value and challenges of a sham ablation randomized trial. Prioritized research opportunities are identified and highlighted to empower relevant stakeholders to collaborate in designing and conducting effective, cost-efficient, and transformative research to optimize the use and outcomes of AF ablation.

Background Geenius HIV 1/2 Supplemental Assay (Geenius; Bio-Rad Laboratories) is the only Food and Drug Administration–approved HIV-1/HIV-2 antibody differentiation test for the second step in the HIV laboratory testing algorithm. We characterized the occurrence of true HIV-1 and HIV-2 infections as well as false results in 6 US clinical laboratories using Geenius. Methods We examined routine HIV testing outcome data from the time the laboratories began using the algorithm with Geenius until September 30, 2017. We calculated the positive predictive value for Geenius HIV-1 and HIV-2 reactivity separately. Results Of 5,046,684 specimens tested, 41,791 had reactive antigen/antibody test results. Most specimens with reactive antigen/antibody results were HIV-1 antibody–positive established infections (n = 32,421), 1,865 of which also had indeterminate HIV-2 bands present. Ninety-three specimens were HIV-2 antibody positive or untypable for HIV-1/HIV-2 antibody. Acute HIV-1 infections were found in 528 specimens; 881 specimens lacked the nucleic acid test to determine the possibility of acute HIV-1 infection. False-positive antigen/antibody test results were present in 7505 specimens. Few specimens (n = 363) had false-positive antigen/antibody results with indeterminate Geenius and negative HIV-1 nucleic acid test results. The positive predictive values of Geenius reactivity were 99.4% for HIV-1 and 4.3% for HIV-2. Conclusions Routine testing using the laboratory testing algorithm with Geenius resulted in most specimens resolving as HIV negative or HIV-1 positive. The occurrence of indeterminate HIV-2 bands with a Geenius final assay interpretation of HIV-1 positive was more common than true HIV-2 infections. Reporting indeterminate HIV-2 results in this situation may cause confusion with interpreting HIV infection status.

Background: Guadecitabine is a next generation subcutaneous (SC) hypomethylating agent (HMA) resistant to degradation by cytidine deaminase which results in prolonged in vivo exposure to the active metabolite decitabine. We conducted a phase 2 study of guadecitabine in 102 Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS), and Chronic Myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) patients. International guidelines recommend a minimum of 4 to 6 cycles of HMA treatment to gain maximum benefit, but some suggest that treatment may not be beneficial if no response was observed after 4 cycles. No prospective studies have confirmed the correlation between an HMA number of cycles with response and survival using landmark methodology. We present here the results of landmark response and survival analyses based on number of cycles and whether patients had an objective response or not. M ethods: Landmark response based on 2006 IWG criteria, and overall survival (OS) analyses for patients alive at or beyond month 3 and month 5 (time of planned start of cycle 4 and cycle 6 respectively) were conducted. Objective response (OR) was defined as patients who had Complete Response (CR), Partial Response (PR), marrow (m)CR, or Hematological Improvement (HI). Landmark OS was compared between patients who received at least 4 or 6 cycles and those who did not. The landmark methodology avoids the bias of early deaths before cycles 4 and 6 attributing a survival benefit in those who did not die early and were able to get more cycles. We also compared the result in responding and non-responding patients to see if survival benefit was restricted to responding patients only. Results: The study completed enrolment with 102 patients: 53 patients after HMA failure (relapsed/refractory or r/r), and 49 HMA-naive patients (Treatment Naïve or TN) with a median follow up for the entire study of 3.2 years (IQR 2.9-3.5 years). Median age was 71 and 72 years for TN MDS/CMML and r/r MDS/CMML patients respectively. Median OS was 23.4 months (m) for TN MDS/CMML patients and 11.7 m for r/r MDS/CMML patients. Of the 102 patients treated, 37 patients (36.3%) and 58 (56.9%) received less than 4 and 6 cycles respectively. The landmark analysis population was 91 patients for the 4-cycle analysis and 87 patients for the 6-cycle analysis. In those patients, the primary reasons for treatment discontinuation before cycle 4 or 6 respectively were patient decision (9.8% and 11.8%), and investigator decision (5.9% and 9.8%) while early progression accounted for 3.9% and 10.8% of those patients. There were no major baseline characteristics difference between patients who received at least 4 and 6 cycles and those who did not in the patients included in the landmark analyses. In the landmark analysis, patients who received at least 4 cycles (65 patients) had an OR rate of 68% compared to 15% in 26 patients who received <4 cycles (p <0.0001) and median OS of 20.4 m compared to 15.2 m respectively (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.45-1.3, p 0.36). Those who received at least 6 cycles (44 patients) had an OR rate of 82% compared to 26% in 43 patients who received < 6 cycles (p<0.0001), and median OS of 23.8 m vs 13.6 m respectively (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.3-0.85, p 0.009). Results were consistent when r/r MDS/CMML and HMA-naïve MDS/CMML were analyzed separately. Landmark OS analysis also favored those who received guadecitabine for at least 4 or 6 cycles compared to those who received <4 and < 6 cycles even in the absence of objective response (OS HR of 0.82 and 0.42 respectively) but the sample size was small to show statistical significance (p 0.58 and 0.10 respectively) Summary/Conclusions: In a prospective phase 2 study of 102 MDS/CMML patients treated with the HMA guadecitabine, patients who were alive at the planned start of cycle 4 and cycle 6 did not continue treatment primarily because of patient or investigator decision in addition to early progression. Those who were alive and continued treatment for at least 4 or 6 cycles achieved highly significant objective response benefit compared to those who did not. Survival benefit was highly significant for those who received at least 6 cycles and was not restricted to patients who had an objective response. It is important to weigh reasons for treatment discontinuation carefully before discontinuing guadecitabine HMA treatment in MDS/CMML patients before 6 cycles to maximize response and survival benefit. Disclosures Savona: Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, 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; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; 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. Kantarjian:Takeda: Honoraria; Astex: Research Funding; Immunogen: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; Actinium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz Pharma: Research Funding. Roboz: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; Pfizer: 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; Orsenix: 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; Jazz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: 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; Celgene: 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; Astex: 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; Amphivena: 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. O'Connell:Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shionogi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yee:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Stock:Research to Practice: Honoraria; UpToDate: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Griffiths:Appelis Pharmaceuticals: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Abbvie, Inc.: Consultancy, PI on a clinical trial; Celgene, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex Phramaceuticals/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Appelis Pharmaceuticals: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Onconova Therapeutics: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Astex Phramaceuticals/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie, Inc.: Consultancy; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Persimmune: Consultancy; Boston Scientific: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Boston Scientific: Consultancy; Persimmune: Consultancy; Onconova Therapeutics: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Novartis Inc.: Consultancy; Celgene, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Partner Therapeutics: Consultancy; Novartis Inc.: Consultancy; Partner Therapeutics: Consultancy. Jabbour:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cyclacel LTD: Research Funding. Podoltsev:Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kartos Therapeutics: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Grant funding, Research Funding; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding. Su:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Garcia-Manero:AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Amphivena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding.

Background: Guadecitabine is a next generation subcutaneous (SC) hypomethylating agent (HMA) resistant to degradation by cytidine deaminase which results in prolonged in vivo exposure to the active metabolite decitabine. We conducted a phase 2 study of guadecitabine in 206 AML patients. International guidelines recommend a minimum of 4 to 6 cycles of HMA treatment to gain maximum benefit, but some suggest that treatment may not be beneficial if no response was observed after 4 cycles. No prospective studies have confirmed the correlation between an HMA number of cycles with response and survival using landmark methodology. We present here the results of landmark response and survival analyses based on number of cycles and whether patients had an objective response or not. M ethods: Landmark response (CR, CRi, or CRp based on 2003 IWG criteria, grouped together as composite CR or CRc), and overall survival (OS) analyses for patients alive at or beyond month 3 and month 5 (time of planned start of cycle 4 and cycle 6 respectively) were conducted. Landmark OS was compared between patients who received at least 4 or 6 cycles and those who did not. The landmark methodology avoids the bias of early deaths before cycles 4 and 6 attributing a survival benefit in those who did not die early and were able to get more cycles. We also compared the result in responding and non-responding patients to see if survival benefit was restricted to responding patients only. Results: The study completed enrolment with 206 AML patients: 103 patients (50%) for each of Treatment Naïve (TN) unfit for intensive chemotherapy, and relapsed/refractory (r/r) AML. Median age was 68.5y (range 22-92y), ECOG PS ≥2 in 26%, poor risk cytogenetics in 41%, secondary AML in 26%, and median baseline BM blasts % was 40% in the total AML population. 108 patients (52.4%), and 155 patients (75%) received <4 and <6 cycles respectively. The primary reasons for treatment discontinuation before 4 and 6 cycles respectively (% from the total population of 206 patients) were early progression (20.4, and 30.6%), and early death (12.6%, and 17%). However, 9.7% and 14% discontinued treatment before 4 or 6 cycles respectively as a result other less objective reasons such as patient decision, investigator decision, or adverse events which might have been manageable without treatment discontinuation. The landmark analysis population included 161 patients for 4-cycle analysis, and 133 for the 6-cycle analysis. In those patients, there were no major differences in baseline characteristics between those who received at least 4 or 6 cycles and those who did not. In the landmark analysis comparing those who received at least 4 cycles (97 patients) and those who did not (64 patients), CRc rate was 62% vs 25% (p < 0.0001) and median OS was 13.7 m vs 6.1 respectively (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.37-0.75, p 0.0003). In the landmark analysis comparing those who received at least 6 cycles (51 patients) and those who did not (82 patients) the CRc rate was 82.4% vs 35.4% (p < 0.0001), and median OS of 19.9 m vs 8.8 m respectively (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.27-0.64, p <0.0001). The results were consistent when TN and r/r AML patients were analyzed separately. More interestingly the landmark OS benefit in patients who received at least 4 or 6 cycles was also evident in patients who did not have an objective CRc. Patients with no CRc who received at least 4 cycles had a median OS of 8 m vs 5.4 m in those who did not (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40-0.98,p 0.04). Patients with no CRc who received at least 6 cycles had a median OS of 12.9 vs 8 m in those who did not (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17-0.94, p 0.03). Summary/Conclusions: In a prospective phase 2 study of 206 TN and r/r AML patients treated with the HMA guadecitabine, patients who were alive at or beyond 3 and 5 months who continued treatment for at least 4 or 6 cycles respectively achieved a highly significant response and survival benefit compared to those who discontinued treatment before cycle 4 or 6. The survival benefit was evident even in patients who did not have an objective response. Reasons for treatment discontinuation should be weighed carefully before stopping HMA treatment with guadecitabine before 4 or 6 cycles in AML patients to maximize response and survival benefit. Failure to achieve an objective response after 4 cycles should not be a reason for treatment discontinuation as long as patient can still benefit. Disclosures Yee: MedImmune: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Roboz: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; Astellas: 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; Celgene: 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; Daiichi Sankyo: 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; 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; Novartis: 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; 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; Pfizer: 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; Sandoz: 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; Trovagene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. O'Connell:BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shionogi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; 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. Griffiths:Boston Scientific: Consultancy; Boston Scientific: Consultancy; Abbvie, Inc.: Consultancy; Persimmune: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Novartis Inc.: Consultancy; Novartis Inc.: Consultancy; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Appelis Pharmaceuticals: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Partner Therapeutics: Consultancy; Appelis Pharmaceuticals: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Onconova Therapeutics: Other: PI on a clinical trial; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie, Inc.: Consultancy, PI on a clinical trial; Celgene, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova Therapeutics: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Partner Therapeutics: Consultancy; Astex Phramaceuticals/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Persimmune: Consultancy; Celgene, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex Phramaceuticals/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding. Stock:Daiichi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Research to Practice: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UpToDate: Honoraria. 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. Savona:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Patents & Royalties; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ravandi:Macrogenix: Consultancy, Research Funding; Selvita: Research Funding; Cyclacel LTD: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Menarini Ricerche: Research Funding; Xencor: Consultancy, Research Funding. Daver:Astellas: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; NOHLA: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; NOHLA: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy; Hanmi Pharm Co., Ltd.: Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Hanmi Pharm Co., Ltd.: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Jabbour:AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cyclacel LTD: Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Su:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Kantarjian:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Actinium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Immunogen: Research Funding; Jazz Pharma: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

Background Over-lengthening of the radial neck has been shown to affect ulnohumeral kinematics and has been proposed to affect radiocapitellar pressures. We hypothesized that an incremental increase in radial neck height increases the capitellar contact pressure and reduces the coronoid contact pressure. Knowledge of the effects of over-lengthening is clinically important in preventing pain and degenerative changes due to overstuffing. Methods Six human cadaveric elbows were prepared on a custom-designed apparatus simulating muscle loads and passive flexion from 0° to 90° under gravity valgus torque while measuring joint contact pressures in this biomechanical study. Each elbow was tested sequentially starting with the intact specimen followed by insertion of a radial head prosthesis with 0, +2, and +4 mm of radial neck height, respectively. Results Capitellar mean contact pressures significantly increased after insertion of +2 and +4 mm radial head prostheses (p < 0.03). The capitellar mean contact pressure with a 0 mm radial head prosthesis was 97 KPa. Insertion of +2 mm and +4 mm radial heads increased mean contact pressures to 391 KPa (p = 0.001) and 619 KPa (p = 0.001), respectively, with 90° of elbow flexion. Discussion Increasing radial prosthesis height by 2 mm significantly increases capitellar contact pressures and reduces coronoid contact pressures.

Abstract Background Quantitative nucleic acid amplification (QNAT) tests are cornerstone for the management of CMV disease after organ transplantation. We assessed the potential impact of viral load results obtained by two commercial WHO international standard-calibrated NAT in solid-organ (SOT) and hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients. Methods Sixty-four patients (36 SOT and 28 HSCT) had plasma CMV viral load assessed using the COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan CMV Test (CAP/CTM; lower limit of quantification [LLoQ] at 137 IU/mL) and cobas 6800 System (cobas CMV; LLoQ at 35 IU/mL). Viral load values were correlated with clinical course and outcomes. Results Forty-three of 64 patients (67.2%) had CMV infection or disease (asymptomatic, 67.4%; gastrointestinal disease, 16.3%; pneumonitis 4.7%) at median of 4.4 months (IQR 1.4 to 7.7) from transplantation. At CMV infection diagnosis, viral load results (mean ± SD) were almost two-fold higher when measured by cobas CMV (19,456 ± 51,618 IU/mL) compared with CAP/CTM (10,504 ± 27,744 IU/mL; P = 0.04). Time to onset of CMV viremia was significantly shorter (11.5 days; P < 0.001) while viral clearance was significantly longer (12.75 days; P < 0.001) by cobas CMV when compared with CAP/CTM. Persistent viremia was observed with cobas CMV in 44% of patients at the time of first negative results by CAP/CTM. Patients with negative results by cobas CMV at the end of antiviral treatment had a significantly lower need for re-treatment (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.99, P = 0.05). Conclusion Our study highlights significant differences between CMV QNAT assays despite calibration to the WHO-international standard. The significant differences in the degree (almost two-fold), time to onset (12 days difference) and clearance (13 days difference) of CMV viremia between two automated commercial QNAT assays have direct implications in the care of transplant recipients. Persistence of low-level viremia was observed in samples that reached negative threshold by CAP/CTM, when tested using the more sensitive cobas CMV. Clearance of CMV viremia, when assessed by the more sensitive cobas CMV, was significantly associated with a lower need for re-treatment. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Abstract Abstract 702 Background: Large granular lymphocyte (LGL) leukemia is characterized by clonal expansion of cytotoxic T cells. Prominent clinical features include neutropenia, anemia, and rheumatoid arthritis. The terminal effector memory phenotype (CD3+/CD8+/CD57+/CD45RA+/CD62L-) of leukemic LGL suggest a pivotal chronic antigen driven immune response. LGL survival is then promoted by PDGF and IL-15 (Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:16308, 2008), resulting in global dysregulation of apoptosis and resistance to normal pathways of activation-induced death (Blood 112:770, 2008). These pathogenic features explain why treatment of LGL leukemia is based on immunosuppression therapy. However, no standard therapy has been established due to the absence of large prospective trials. Methods: Eligibility criteria included increased number of LGL (CD3+CD57+ cells > 400/ul or CD8+ cells >650/ul) plus evidence of clonal rearrangement of T cell receptor gene. Treatment indications included the following categories: a) severe neutropenia (ANC < 500/ul); b) neutropenia associated with recurrent infections; c) symptomatic anemia; and, d) transfusion-dependent anemia. Initial Treatment: (Step 1) consisted of methotrexate (MTX) at 10 mg/m2 po in divided doses once weekly. Prednisone was given at 1 mg/kg po × 30 days and then tapered off in the subsequent 24 days. Patients not responding to MTX received cyclophosphamide (CY) at 100 mg po daily with the same prednisone schedule (Step 2). Treatment response was assessed after four months of therapy as: complete remission (CR): normal CBC (ANC ≥ 1,500/ul, lymphocyte count <4,000/ul, hemoglobin ≥ 11 g/dl, and platelet count > 100,000/ul. In addition, LGL counts needed to be within normal range. Partial response (PR) was defined as improvement in hematologic parameters in the absence of CR: 1) ANC > 500, as long as this represented 50% increase (category a); 2) improvement in ANC ≥ 50% over baseline (category b); 3) increase in hemoglobin by ≥ 1 g/dl for at least four months duration (category c); and, 4) decrease in monthly transfusion requirement of > 50% for at least four months (category d). Progressive disease (PD) was defined as worsening of hematologic parameters in patients previously achieving PR/CR. No response (NR) was defined as lack of CR/PR. Results: Response data are shown for Step 1 (Table 1) and for Step 2 (Table 2). Overall response rate (CR/PR) for MTX was 37%. In patients failing MTX, the overall response to CY was 64%. There were two infectious deaths during Step 1 therapy. Conclusion: Data documenting efficacy of immunosuppressive therapies commonly utilized in LGL leukemia (MTX, CY, Cyclosporine) are limited to 300 patients published primarily as small retrospective studies. Such data show an overall response rate to MTX of 58% (56/96 patients). Here in the only large prospective trial we observed an overall response rate of 37%. Overall response rate of 64% for CY was not statistically different than MTX. However, given that CY response rate was observed in MTX failures, future studies should consider evaluation of CY as initial therapy. Disclosures: Off Label Use: Immunosuppressive therapies for LGL leukemia including Methotrexate and Cyclophosphamide.

Abstract Background: Retinoblastoma (RB) is the most frequent pediatric retinal tumor. In the present study, to elucidate chemoresistance mechanisms and identify potential biomarkers in RB, we utilized RNA sequencing (RNAseq) technological platforms to reveal transcriptome profiles and identify any differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between an etoposide drug-resistant subline (Y79/EDR) and parental Y79 cells. Methods: To test whether Y79/EDR cells showed resistance to antineoplastic agents for RB, we treated the cells with etoposide, carboplatin and vincristine and analyzed them with a Cell Counting Kit-8 (CCK-8). Y79/EDR and parental Y79 cells were used for RNAseq and bioinformatics analysis to enable a genome-wide review of DEGs between the two lines using the DESeq R package (1.10.1). Then, DEG enrichment in Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathways was analyzed with KOBAS software. Next, real-time quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (real time QRT-PCR) and cytotoxicity assays were performed to experimentally and functionally validate the identified candidate biomarkers. Results: Y79/EDR cells showed resistance to etoposide, carboplatin and vincristine at different concentrations. In total, 524 transcripts were differentially expressed in Y79/EDR cells based on analysis of fragments per kilobase of transcript per million fragments mapped (FPKM); among these, 57 genes were downregulated and 467 genes were upregulated in Y79/EDR cells compared to parental Y79 cells. We selected candidate DEGs, including ARHGAP9 , HIST1H4H , RELN , DDIT4 , HK2 , STC1 and PFKFB4, for mRNA expression validation with real time QRT-PCR assays and found that the expression levels determined by real time QRT-PCR were consistent with the RNAseq data. Further studies involving downregulation of ARHGAP9 with a specific siRNA showed that ARHGAP9 altered the cellular sensitivity of Y79 cells to etoposide and carboplatin. Conclusion: Our initial findings provided a genomic view of the transcription profiles of etoposide-induced acquired resistance in RB. Follow-up studies indicated that ARHGAP9 might be a chemoresistance biomarker in RB, providing insight into potential therapeutic targets for overcoming acquired chemoresistance in RB. These findings can aid in understanding and overcoming chemoresistance during treatment of RB in the clinic.

Abstract Hematological malignancies such as multiple myeloma (MM) have an increased reliance on the ubiquitin proteasome system (UPS) presumably as a consequence of their high protein synthetic and secretory burden. Chemical agents that target the proteasome, such as bortezomib and carfilzomib, have been successful in treating multiple myeloma; however patients treated with these drugs ultimately relapse. The AAA-ATPase p97/VCP (p97) facilitates ATP-dependent extraction and degradation of ubiquitinated proteins destined for proteasomal elimination. In addition to ubiquitin-dependent protein degradation, p97 is also closely involved in other aspects of protein homeostasis, including endoplasmic reticulum-associated degradation (ERAD) and autophagy. Pharmacologic inhibition of p97 provides a compelling therapeutic approach for hematological malignancies that rely on tight regulation of protein homeostasis as a component of their survival. CB-5083 is a novel small molecule inhibitor of p97 ATPase activity with nanomolar enzymatic and cellular potency. Treatment of cancer cells with CB-5083 causes a dramatic increase in poly-ubiquitinated proteins as well as an accumulation of substrates of the UPS and ERAD. CB-5083 causes a profound induction of the unfolded protein response (UPR) with consequent activation of the DR5 death receptor, caspase 8, caspase 3/7 and ultimately cell death. Induction of the UPR occurs to a greater magnitude with CB-5083 when compared to the proteasome inhibitor, bortezomib, suggesting the potential for increased efficacy in cancers with sensitivity to UPR-mediated cell death. In addition, activation of apoptosis and cell death occur more rapidly with CB-5083 than with bortezomib. Sequencing of cell lines made resistant to CB-5083 reveals missense mutations mapping to the D2 ATPase site in p97, supporting on-target association with cytotoxicity. In an expanded panel of MM cell lines there is no correlation between the cytotoxic sensitivity to CB-5083 and the cytotoxic sensitivity to proteasome inhibitors, suggesting differential mechanisms of cytotoxicity and potential activity of CB-5083 in proteasome inhibitor resistant settings. Compared to myeloma cell lines, CB-5083 has reduced cytotoxic potency in immortalized stromal cell lines and in patient-derived CD138-negative bone marrow mononuclear cells. Furthermore, unlike the reduced potency demonstrated by carfilzomib in the context of MM cell-bone marrow stromal cell (BMSC) interactions, the cyto-reductive potential of CB-5083 is unaffected in co-cultures of MM cells with patient-derived BMSCs or immortalized BMSCs from healthy donors. In vivo, CB-5083 is orally bioavailable, shows a pharmacodynamic effect in tumor tissue (as measured by poly-ubiquitin accumulation) and demonstrates robust anti-tumor activity across several MM models. CB-5083 treatment of mice bearing subcutaneous xenografts leads to tumor stasis and regression in RPMI8226 and AMO1 MM models, respectively. In advanced models of disseminated, ortho-metastatic disease, intermittent oral administration of CB-5083 demonstrates significant inhibition of myeloma burden and improves survival, with an overall efficacy profile that compares favorably to that of clinically approved proteasome inhibitors. Furthermore, in the Vk*Myc genetically engineered mouse model of MM, treatment with CB-5083 results in a significant reduction in M-spike by 55%. Combination treatment of mice bearing the RPMI8226 subcutaneous xenograft model with CB-5083, dexamethasone and lenalidomide results in tumor regression. Taken together, these data demonstrate that CB-5083 is a potent and selective inhibitor of the p97 ATPase with robust activity in vitro and in vivo in numerous MM models and strongly support clinical evaluation. Based on these observations, a phase 1 dose-escalation trial has recently been initiated and is currently underway in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Disclosures Anderson: Cleave Biosciences: Employment. Le Moigne:Cleave Biosciences: Employment. Djakovic:Cleave Biosciences: Employment. Rice:Cleave Biosciences: Employment. Wong:Cleave Biosciences: Employment. Kumar:Cleave Biosciences: Employment. Valle:Cleave Biosciences: Employment. Menon:Cleave Biosciences: Employment. Kiss von Soly:Cleave Biosciences: Employment. Wang:Cleave Biosciences: Employment. Yao:Cleave Biosciences: Employment. Soriano:Cleave Biosciences: Employment. Bergsagel:ONYX: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding. Yakes:Cleave Biosciences: Employment. Zhou:Cleave Biosciences: Employment. Wustrow:Cleave Biosciences: Employment. Rolfe:Cleave Biosciences: Employment.