Citations

Background and Aims Interleukin‐22 has beneficial effects on inflammation and impaired hepatic regeneration that characterize alcohol‐associated hepatitis (AH). F‐652 is a recombinant fusion protein of human interleukin‐22 and immunoglobulin G2 fragment crystallizable. This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy signals of F‐652 in patients with moderate and severe AH. Approach and Results A phase‐2 dose‐escalating study was carried out. F‐652 (10 μg/kg, 30 μg/kg, or 45 μg/kg) administered on days 1 and 7 was tested in 3 patients each with moderate (Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease [MELD] scores: 11‐20) and severe AH (MELD scores: 21‐28). Safety was defined by absence of serious adverse events and efficacy was assessed by Lille score, changes in MELD score, and serum bilirubin and aminotransferases at days 28 and 42. Three independent propensity‐matched comparator patient cohorts were used. Plasma extracellular vesicles and multiplex serum cytokines were measured to assess inflammation and hepatic regeneration. Eighteen patients (9 moderate and 9 severe AH) were enrolled, 66% were male, and the mean age was 48 years. The half‐life of F‐652 following the first dose was 61‐85 hours. There were no serious adverse events leading to discontinuation. The MELD score and serum aminotransferases decreased significantly at days 28 and 42 from baseline (P < 0.05). Day‐7 Lille score was 0.45 or less in 83% patients as compared with 6%, 12%, and 56% among the comparator cohorts. Extracellular vesicle counts decreased significantly at day 28 (P < 0.013). Cytokine inflammatory markers were down‐regulated, and regeneration markers were up‐regulated at days 28 and 42. Conclusions F‐652 is safe in doses up to 45 μg/kg and associated with a high rate of improvement as determined by Lille and MELD scores, reductions in markers of inflammation and increases in markers of hepatic regeneration. This study supports the need for randomized placebo‐controlled trials to test the efficacy of F‐652 in AH.

Abstract Introduction: REGN1979 is a hinge-stabilized CD20xCD3bispecific full-length antibody (Ab) based on an IgG4isotype modified to reduce Fc binding. It is designed to bind T cells (via CD3) and CD20-expressing cells. Cross-linking results in specific, local T cell activation and engagement ofcytolytic functions, independent of T cell receptor mediated recognition. This mechanism of action (MOA) is distinct from approved anti-CD20 Abs, and may provide additional therapeutic benefit. This report describes safety and clinical outcomes in 25 patients (pts) treated with REGN1979. Methods: The study uses a 3+3 design to assess safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and activity of REGN1979 inpts with NHL and CLL, in separate dose escalation cohorts. REGN1979 is administered IV over 1-4 hours, weekly (QW) for 4 doses followed by every 4 weeks (Q4W) for 5 doses. Each dose level (DL) consists of an initial starting dose followed by a higher (step-up) dose.Pts with either progressive disease (PD) after initial response or suboptimal initial response could be retreated. Results: As of clinical cut-off, 25pts had been enrolled and treated with REGN1979 at flat doses ranging from 0.03 - 3.0 mg: 20pts with NHLand 5pts with CLL. NHL subtypes included DLBCL (n=12), FL (n=6), and MCL (n=2). Allpts hada medianof3 (range 1-7) prior regimens, and received a median of 5 (range 2-9) doses of REGN1979. Sixpts remained on initial treatment, 3pts completed treatment, and 16pts discontinued treatment (14 for PD; 2 subject decision). Of 4pts who entered retreatment, 2pts remained ongoing. The most common treatment-related treatment-emergent AEs (TR-TEAEs) were pyrexia (56%), infusionrelated reaction (IRR) (40%), chills (36%), cytokine release syndrome (CRS) (28%), fatigue (24%), tachycardia (24%), hypomagnesaemia (20%) and hypotension (20%). Grade >= 3 TR-TEAEs occurred in 8 pts(32%): IRR (12%), CRS (8%), hypotension (8%), and pyrexia, tachycardia, dyspnea, anemia, hypoxia, hypertension, tachypnea, transaminases increased, and tumor pain each in 1 pt(4%). All were grade 3 with the exception of 1 ptwith grade 4 hypotension. There were no protocol-defined DLTs, nor grade 5 TEAE. No ptsdiscontinued REGN1979 due to TR-TEAE. IRR and CRS events were most commonly reported with the first administration of both initial and step-up dose with incidence and severity decreasing with increasing exposure. Tenptsreported at least one TR-SAE: CRS (24%), IRR (20%), and increased AST and tumor pain, each in 1pt(4%). Threeptswith aggressive lymphoma who discontinued REGN1979 due to PD died of their disease within 30 days of their last dose. Notably, modifications to pre-medication(s) and drug administration instructions have improved tolerability (fewer and less severe IRR/CRS). No clinically significant CNS TEAEs have been observed. CT-based (Cheson, 2007) anti-tumor activity was observed in 11 ptswith NHL: PR [n=4,median duration of 50d];SD [n=7, median duration of >196d]. The overall response rate (ORR) in NHL ptsacross DLs was 20%. In 2 highest dose levels, ORR was 27% (Fig 1). Of the 14pts evaluated by PET, 4pts had a partial metabolic response, withmedian duration of 244d perLugano Criteria. Twopts with CLL attained SD as best overall response. PK: REGN1979 concentrations in serum increased with increasing DL and were variable across pts. Variability was less at higher DLs and also decreased over time during therapy. At DLs tested, REGN1979 concentrations did not notably increase over time during treatment. PD/Cytokines: At the lowest dose tested, 0.03 mg, transient B-cell depletion was observed inpts with measurable circulating B cells.Samples from 12pts were available for cytokine analysis. Interim analysis indicates REGN1979 induces cytokine release as expected based on MOA. An increase in IL-6, IL-10 and to lesser extent IFN-γ was observed. The magnitude of cytokine response generally correlated with symptomatic IRR/CRS. Conclusion: REGN1979 demonstrated an acceptable safety profile at flat doses of 0.03 - 3.0 mg (< 1% of rituximab dose) inpts with NHL and CLL. Most TEAEs were associated with IRR/CRS, and were managed with supportive therapy and modification to REGN1979 administration. No clinically significant neurological toxicity was observed. Preliminary antitumor activity demonstrates increased activity at higher doses. Dose escalation and treatment schedule optimization continue. Disclosures Brown: Acetylon, Gilead: Research Funding; Celgene, Roche/Genentech, Gilead, Infinity, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, ProNai, Sun BioPharma: Consultancy. Arnason:Gilead: Consultancy. O'Brien:Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Chavez:Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Ansell:BMS, Seattle Genetics, Merck, Celldex and Affimed: Research Funding. Topp:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Other: travel; Boehringer: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Travel. Adriaens:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ufkin:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kostic:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Paccaly:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gao:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Trail:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lowy:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Brownstein:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership.

M.T.J. and M.D.J. contributed equally; A.G. and F.L.L. contributed equally. Introduction Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) is an autologous anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy that is approved for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) who have failed at least two prior systemic lines of therapy. In the ZUMA-1 trial that led to axi-cel approval, 93% of patients developed cytokine release syndrome (CRS) (Neelapu, Locke et al. NEJM 2018). CRS is a non-antigen-specific toxicity that occurs as a result of CAR T and bystander immune cell activation. Whether lack of development of CRS after treatment with axi-cel is associated with inferior lymphoma outcomes is unknown. Here we evaluate the outcomes of patients that did not develop CRS after receiving axi-cel in a large multicenter cohort. Methods and Results The US Lymphoma CAR T Consortium includes seventeen US academic centers that contribute data independently of manufacturers. As of 8/31/2018, 300 patients were apheresed with intent to manufacture standard of care axi-cel for LBCL. In this study, we analyzed 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, 25 patients (9%) did not develop CRS and 251 patients (91%) developed CRS following axi-cel infusion. CRS was graded according to Lee criteria (Lee et al. Blood 2014) or CARTOX (Neelapu SS et al. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2018). At baseline, a higher proportion of patients in the no CRS group had ECOG score of 0-1 (no CRS group 100% vs. CRS group 82%, p= 0.019) and IPI score of 0-2 (no CRS group 72% vs. CRS group 46%, p = 0.019) After CAR T cell infusion, patients who did not develop CRS had a lower chance of developing grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity (no CRS group 4% vs. CRS group 35%, p=0.001), lower rates of ICU admission (no CRS group 8% vs. CRS group 35%, p = 0.006), and shorter length of hospital stay (median 10 days for no CRS group vs 14 days for CRS group, p &lt; 0.001). Of the 25 patients who had grade 0 CRS, 23 (92%%) also had grade 0 neurotoxicity. In univariate analysis, no CRS was associated with lower complete response (CR) rate (no CRS group 40% vs. CRS group 66%, p=0.015) but no statistically significant difference in overall response rate (ORR) (no CRS group 72% vs. CRS group 84%, p= 0.158). In relation to CRS there was no difference in treatment related mortality among the two groups (CRS group 4% vs. no CRS group 4.4%, p = 0.85). In multivariate analysis correcting for confounding features, no CRS was associated with statistically significant lower complete response rate (p = 0.002), but there was no significant difference in ORR (p = 0.13), overall survival (P=0.15), progression free survival (P=0.16), and time to progression (P= 0.14) between the two groups (figure 1.). Conclusions In this large cohort of LBCL patients receiving axi-cel with median follow up of 9 months, patients that did not develop CRS, compared with those that developed CRS, achieved lower rates of complete response but there was no difference in overall response rate, progression free survival, time to progression, overall survival, and treatment related mortality between the two groups. Disclosures Jain: Kite/Gilead: Consultancy. Nastoupil:Bayer: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Spectrum: Honoraria. Lunning:Spectrum: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; OncLive: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Consultancy; DAVA: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; MiRagen: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Consultancy, Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; 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:Novartis: 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; Juno Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding. Deol:Agios: Other: Advisory board; Novartis: Other: Advisory board; Kite: Other: Advisory board. Sehgal:Juno/Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding. Goy:Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; University of Nebraska: 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; Hakensackumc: Research Funding; Hackensack University Medical Center, RCCA: Employment; 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; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; Genentech: Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding. Hill:Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Andreadis:Juno: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Roche: Equity Ownership; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Employment; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Munoz:Incyte: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Fosunkite: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics /Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy; 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. Chavez:Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: 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. Bennani:Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board. 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:Becton Dickinson: Research Funding; Miltenyi Biotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; 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; 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; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; 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. Neelapu:Poseida: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Allogene: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding. Ghobadi:Wugen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; EUSA: Consultancy; Kite Pharma a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Locke:Novartis: Other: Scientific Advisor; Cellular BioMedicine Group Inc.: Consultancy; Kite: Other: Scientific Advisor.

Introduction: Emerging evidence supports that cytogenetic abnormalities (CAs) drive myelomagenesis and heterogeneity (e.g., clinical presentation, response to therapy, and prognosis) of multiple myeloma (MM). Diversity of CAs, including primary (IgH translocations and trisomies) and secondary CAs (copy number abnormalities) argues that MM is not a "single disease". Thus, identification of CAs at diagnosis is essential for risk stratification, guiding treatment, and prognostic estimation in daily practice. However, although frequency, configuration, and significance of CAs have been well documented in the Western countries, this information is lacking in the Asian population. To this end, a multi-center retrospective analysis was carried out to examine epidemiology and prognostic significance of CAs alone or in combination in a cohort of Chinese patients with newly-diagnosed MM (NDMM). Materials and Methods: A total of 1015 NDMM patients who had the baseline information of CAs detected by FISH at four institutes nationwide were included. According to the IMWG consensus updated in 2016, 1q gain, del(17p), t[4;14], and t[14;16] were defined as high-risk CAs (HRCAs), while another HRCA t[14;20] was not tested routinely in a majority of these patients. In addition, del(1p) and del(13q14) were considered as an adverse CA. According to the mSMART3.0 proposed by Mayo Clinic in 2018, double-hit (DHMM) and triple-hit MM (THMM) were defined as co-occurrence of 2 or >= 3 HRCAs, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier approach was used to estimate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: In this cohort, the median age of 1015 patients was 61 years; 63.5% were male. The type of IgG, light chain, IgA, IgD, non/oligosecretory, IgM, or IgE accounted for 42.9%, 26.2%, 24.5%, 3.4%, 2.5%, 0.4%, and 0.1%, respectively. Del(13q) (46.4%) and 1q gain (46.1%; 3 copies = 73.8%, >= 4 copies = 26.2%) represented the most common CAs, followed by t(4;14) (14.0%), t(11;14) (11.8%), del(1p) (11.5%), del(17p) (9.9%; 20-50% cells = 35.6%, > 50% cells = 64.4%), and t(14;16) (5.1%). While none of these CAs was detected in 23.8% of cases, the frequency of patients who carried 1 - 5 CAs was 31.9%, 28.0%, 13.4%, 2.0%, and 0.9%, respectively. In the 1q+ cases, 36.4% patients carried second CA(s), including del(13q) (61.1%), t(4;14) (20.3%), del(1p) (14.8%), del(17p) (10.7%), t(11;14) (10.4%), and t(14;16) (8.1%). In the del(17p) cases, 57.5% patients had additional CA(s), including del(13q) (75.2%), 1q gain (49.5%), del(1p) (21.6%), t(4;14) (19.6%), t(14;16) (8.7%), and t(11;14) (2.2%). In the cases bearing IgH translocations, 26.0% patients also carried other CA(s), including del(13q) and 1q gain (61.9% for each), and del(17p) (9.3%). In the cases harboring HRCAs, the percentage of patients who carried 1 - 4 HRCAs was 70.2%, 24.8%, 3.7%, and 1.1%, respectively. Overall, 14.3% and 2.9% patients had DHMM or THMM, of whom 65.0%, 18.0%, 12.0%, and 5.0% had 2 - 5 HRCAs, respectively. While there was no significant difference in PFS between the cases carrying 1 and 2 CAs (P = 0.209), the patients who had 3 or more CAs displayed a sharp reduction in median PFS (P = 0.022 and P = 0.003 for 3 vs 1 or 2 CAs). Although multiple CAs was associated with shorter median OS, no statistical significance was observed for each comparison (P > 0.05). However, patients who carried >= 2 HRCAs had significantly shorter median PFS (12.1 months; P = 0.0004) and OS (29.3 months; P = 0.027) than those who had one single HRCA (32.2 and 65.6 months for median PFS and OS). Conclusion: In comparison with the Western countries, the incidence of secondary HRCAs (e.g., 1q gain and del(17p)) is relatively higher in Chinese patients at diagnosis, while the standard-risk CA such as t(11;14) is clearly less frequent. The proportion of Chinese patients who carry multiple CAs (up to 5) or HRCAs appear to be greater as well. In this context, patients carrying two or more HRCAs, so called DHMM or THMM, exhibit significantly worse outcome than those carrying only one HRCA. Together, this study builds up an up-to-date profile of CAs for Chinese patients, which might lay a foundation for revising the criteria for risk stratification and the guideline for treatment that is more feasible and practicable in China. It also provides the information about frequency and configuration of MM-driven CAs, which might be more relevant to the Asian population. Disclosures Kumar: Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract EGFR gene amplification and mutation are common in glioblastoma (GBM), but EGFR inhibition is not effective in treating this tumor. EGFR inhibition may fail because EGFR is not a driver of the malignant phenotype in GBM, or because adaptive compensatory mechanisms are triggered by EGFR inhibition that prevent cell death from a loss of EGFR signaling. We have recently identified a TNFα-JNK-Axl-ERK signaling axis that mediates primary resistance to EGFR inhibition in GBM. Temozolomide (TMZ) is the most effective chemotherapy in GBM, although it has only a modest effect on overall survival. The efficacy of TMZ depends on the absence of the DNA repair protein O6-alkylguanine DNA alkyltransferase (MGMT) which reverses the DNA damage induced by TMZ. The MGMT promoter is hypermethylated in about 45% of GBMs, resulting in lack of MGMT expression. TMZ is less effective in MGMT unmethylated GBMs. Moreover, even initially responsive tumors develop a secondary resistance to TMZ. No treatment is effective in recurrent TMZ-resistant GBM. In this study, we compare the efficacy of temozolomide versus EGFR plus TNF inhibition in an orthotopic model of GBM. We find that efficacy of the two treatments is similar in MGMT-methylated GBMs. However, in MGMT-unmethylated GBMs, a combination of EGFR plus TNF inhibition is more effective. We demonstrate that the two treatment approaches target distinct and non-overlapping pathways. Furthermore, and importantly, EGFR plus TNF inhibition remains effective in TMZ-resistant recurrent GBMs and in GBMs rendered experimentally resistant to TMZ. Since the EGFR is expressed in the majority of GBMs, EGFR inhibition combined with a blunting of the accompanying TNF-driven adaptive response could be a broadly applicable and viable therapeutic approach in primary GBMs with MGMT unmethylation and in recurrent GBMs.

AbstractIntroductionPractical algorithms predicting the probability of amyloid pathology among patients with subjective cognitive decline or mild cognitive impairment may help clinical decisions regarding confirmatory biomarker testing for Alzheimer's disease.MethodsAlgorithm feature selection was conducted with Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative and Australian Imaging, Biomarkers and Lifestyle Flagship Study of Ageing data. Probability algorithms were developed in Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative using nested cross‐validation accompanied by stratified subsampling to obtain 1000 internally validated decision trees. Semi‐independent validation was conducted using Australian Imaging, Biomarkers and Lifestyle Flagship Study of Ageing. Independent external validation was conducted in the population‐based Mayo Clinic Study of Aging.ResultsTwo algorithms were developed using age and normalized immediate recall z‐scores, with or without apolipoprotein E ε4 carrier status. Both algorithms had robust performance across data sets and when substituting different recall memory tests.DiscussionThe statistical framework resulted in robust probability estimation. Application of these algorithms may assist in clinical decision‐making for further testing to diagnose amyloid pathology.

Key Points MRD response has value as a prognostic factor for blinatumomab treatment in R/R B-cell precursor ALL. MRD response was associated with better outcomes in terms of OS and RFS in blinatumomab-treated R/R ALL.

Abstract Background: The selective AURKA inhibitor alisertib (MLN8237) exhibits disease modifying activity in murine models of myelofibrosis by eradicating atypical megakaryocytes resulting in reduction of marrow fibrosis (Nat Med 2015). Here, we present long term follow-up results from the investigator initiated pilot study of alisertib in patients with myelofibrosis (clinical trials.gov Identifier NCT 02530619). Methods: 24 patients with DIPSS intermediate 1, intermediate-2, or high risk myelofibrosis who were in need of therapy, refractory/intolerant or unlikely to respond to JAK inhibitors with neutrophil count ≥ 1 x109/L, and platelet count ≥ 50 x109/L, received alisertib (provided by Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc) at a dose of 50 mg twice daily for one week every 21 days. Toxicity assessment was performed by the standard common terminology criteria (Version 4.0). Response was assessed by the international working group for myelofibrosis research and treatment (IWGMRT) criteria. Correlative studies included assessments of JAK2V617F, CALR, and MPL mutant allele burden, degree of fibrosis and GATA1 expression in bone marrow samples obtained pre and post therapy. Results: We enrolled 17 patients with primary myelofibrosis, 4 with post essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis and 3 with post polycythemia vera myelofibrosis. Median age was 72 years with 66% males. 79% of patients were DIPSS intermediate risk, and the remainder were high risk with 15 patients (62.5%) having received prior JAK inhibitor therapy. Driver mutational status was as follows; 58% JAK2V617F, 29% CALR, and 13% MPL mutated. At study entry, 54% of patients demonstrated palpable splenomegaly ≥ 5 cm below the left costal margin, 54% were transfusion dependent with all patients experiencing constitutional symptoms. At the time of data cut-off, patients received a median of 7.5 cycles (range; 1-29 cycles) of therapy. The 7 patients presently on study have received a median of 23 cycles (range; 8-29 cycles). Reasons for treatment discontinuation included progressive disease/lack of response in 11 (65%) patients, toxicity in 4 (24%) patients and refusal of further therapy in 2 (11%) patients.Safety and Efficacy assessments The most common treatment-emergent grade 3/4 adverse events included neutropenia (42%), thrombocytopenia (29%) and anemia (21%), with 4% each experiencing neutropenic fever, diarrhea, vertigo, elevated creatinine and elevated alanine aminotransferase. 22 patients were considered for response evaluation with 4 of 14 patients (29%) with palpable splenomegaly ≥ 5 cm achieving a spleen response, 1 of 13 patients (8%) becoming transfusion independent, and 5 of 22 patients (23%) experiencing symptom response with ≥ 50% reduction in the MPN-SAF total symptom score. However, when response assessment was restricted to 13 patients who had received a minimum of 5 cycles of therapy, spleen responses were observed in 4 of 7 (57%) patients, 1 of 5 (20%) achieved transfusion independence and 5 of 13 (38%) achieved symptom response. All patients presenting with leukocytosis (n=4) and thrombocytosis (n=2) had resolution with therapy. Of the 7 patients presently on study, four patients continue to demonstrate symptom response, two patients with both spleen and symptom response, and another patient with sustained anemia response. Correlative assessments We compared the intensity of staining of GATA1, a factor that is required for maturation, in sequential bone marrow biopsies from six patients at baseline and after a minimum of five cycles and observed a striking increase in the numbers of GATA1-positive megakaryocytes in five of six cases (Figure 1a). In addition, we observed a one grade reduction in marrow fibrosis in 4 of 6 paired samples (Figure 1b). This reduction in fibrosis was accompanied by sustained responses to the drug. Finally, we compared JAK2, MPL or CALR mutant allele burden in eight paired baseline and cycle 5 or 6 samples and observed decreases in 4 of 8 patients (Figure 1c). Conclusions: Alisertib is safe and well tolerated in patients with myelofibrosis with prolonged administration up to 1.7 years. In addition to providing clinical benefit, alisertib restored normal morphology and GATA1 expression in atypical megakaryocytes and reduced marrow fibrosis and mutant allele burdens. These findings demonstrate that AURKA inhibition should be further explored as a therapeutic option in myelofibrosis. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Swords: AbbVie: Employment. Watts:Jazz Pharma: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding. Frankfurt:Celgene, Jazz, Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Altman:Cyclacel: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Epizyme: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Ariad: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Bayer: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Celator: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; FujiFilm: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Agios: Other: Payment to the institution to conduct the trial ; Astellas Pharma: Other; Genetech: Other: Payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; GSK: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Immune Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boeringer Ingelheim: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work. Rampal:Celgene: Honoraria; Stemline: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria. Giles:Actuate Therapeutics Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Crispino:Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding; Scholar Rock: Research Funding.