Citations

Abstract Background Observational studies have shown higher folate consumption to be associated with lower risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Understanding whether and how genetic risk factors interact with folate could further elucidate the underlying mechanism. Aggregating functionally relevant genetic variants in set-based variant testing has higher power to detect gene-environment (GxE) interactions and may provide information on the underlying biological pathway. Objective We investigated interactions between folate consumption and predicted gene expression on colorectal cancer risk across the genome. Methods We used variant weights from the PrediXcan models of colon tissue-specific gene expression as a priori variant information for a set-based GxE approach. We harmonized total folate intake (mcg/day) based on dietary intake and supplemental use across cohort and case-control studies and calculated sex and study specific quantiles. Analyses were performed using a mixed effects score tests for interactions between folate and genetically predicted expression of 4,839 genes with available genetically predicted expression. We meta-analyzed results across 23 studies for a total of 13,498 cases with colorectal tumors and 13,918 controls of European ancestry. Results We found suggestive evidence of interaction with folate intake for genes including glutathione S-Transferase Alpha 1 (GSTA1; p=4.3E-4), Tonsuko Like, DNA Repair Protein (TONSL; p=4.3E-4), and Aspartylglucosaminidase (AGA: p=4.5E-4). Glutathione is an antioxidant, preventing cellular damage and is a downstream metabolite of homocysteine and metabolized by GSTA1. TONSL is part of a complex that functions in the recovery of double strand breaks and AGA plays a role in lysosomal breakdown of glycoprotein. Conclusion We identified three genes involved in preventing or repairing DNA damage that may interact with folate consumption to alter CRC risk.

Abstract Background: Palliative care (PC) benefits patients with cancer and those undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), but remains under-utilized in HSCT. While transplant physicians have substantial concerns regarding how patients perceive PC, studies examining HSCT recipients' perceptions of PC are lacking. Methods: Between 11/2020-4/2021, the CIBMTR Survey Research Group conducted a multi-site cross-sectional survey of adult autologous and allogeneic HSCT recipients at 11 transplant centers in the United States who were 3-12 months post-transplant to assess their experience, knowledge, and perceptions of PC. Using validated questionnaires, we assessed patients' familiarity with PC, knowledge and perception of PC, unmet PC needs, quality of life, and symptom burden. We computed a composite score of patients' perceptions of PC (mean = 48.8, SD = 12.2). We used a generalized linear regression model to examine factors associated with patients' perceptions of PC. Results: Of 359 potentially eligible patients, 250 (69.6%) enrolled in the study and 249 were eligible for analysis. Median participant age was 58.1 years (IQR 16.6). Most were white (85.9%), non-Hispanic or Latino (95.2%), and male (53.0%). Overall, 63.1% underwent autologous HSCT. The most common diagnoses were multiple myeloma (42.2%), lymphoma (22.1%), leukemia (16.9%), and MDS/MPN (12.4%). Overall, 44.2% (110/249) of patients reported limited knowledge about PC and 51.0% (127/249) endorsed being familiar with PC. Most patients stated that when they hear the term PC, they feel hopeful (54%), and reassured (50%) while a minority reported feeling scared (21%), stressed (22%), or depressed (15%) [Figure 1]. Most endorsed that when a PC referral is suggested for them, they think their doctor really cares about what is happening to them (83%), and only 7% of patients stated that when a PC referral is suggested, they think their doctor has given up on them [Figure 2]. In multivariate analyses, patients who were more knowledgeable about PC were more likely to have a positive perception of PC (B = 7.54, SE=1.61, P < 0.001) compared to those who had less knowledge about PC. Patients with postgraduate education were more likely to have a negative perception of PC (B = -5.55, SE=2.60, P = 0.034) compared to those with high school education or less. Patients' demographics, HSCT type, diagnosis, unmet PC needs, quality of life, and symptom burden were not statistically significantly associated with their perceptions of PC. Conclusions: A substantial proportion of HSCT recipients report limited knowledge and familiarity with PC. Most patients reported positive perceptions of PC, and those who were more knowledgeable about PC were more likely to have positive perceptions of PC. These data do not support transplant physicians' concerns about how patients perceive PC and underscore the need for future interventions to further educate patients about PC to overcome barriers to PC utilization in HSCT. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Burns: Astellas Pharma Inc.: Research Funding; Medac GmbH: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; OncoImmune: Research Funding; Fate: Research Funding; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; PrioThera: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin International: Research Funding. Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. LeBlanc: Amgen: Consultancy, Other: travel; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Flatiron: Consultancy, Other: Advisory board; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory board; Travel fees, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory board; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory board; Travel fees, Speakers Bureau; Helsinn: Consultancy, Research Funding; Duke University: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; NINR/NIH: Research Funding; CareVive: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; American Cancer Society: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory board; Heron: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory board.

Abstract Background: MGTA-145, a CXCR2 agonist, has shown promising activity for hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) mobilization with plerixafor in pre-clinical models and healthy volunteers. It has the potential to become the first GCSF free regimen for HSC mobilization/apheresis in preparation for transplant, with fewer side effects, better patient experience and optimal resource utilization. Methods: We conducted a single center phase 2 trial of MGTA-145 + plerixafor for HSC mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma (MM), NCT04552743. Primary endpoint was collection of ≥2 x 10 6 CD34+ cells/kg in up to 2 days of mobilization/apheresis. Secondary endpoints were collection of 4 and 6 x 10 6 CD34+ cells/kg, safety and engraftment. Patients with MM, 18-70 years of age, within 1 year of starting treatment & CrCl > 30 ml/min were eligible. Patients received plerixafor 0.24 mg/kg (0.16 mg/kg if renal dysfunction) SQ, followed 2 hours later by MGTA-145 (0.03 mg/kg) IV over 3-10 minutes and apheresis within 30 minutes. Mobilization and collection were repeated for a second consecutive day if day 1 yield was < 6 x 10 6 CD34+ cells/kg. The study was open-label single arm trial of 15 patients. If 13 or more patients met primary endpoint, an expansion cohort of 10 patients was planned. The trial has 85% power at a 5% one-sided type I error rate. Our analysis is based on aggregated results from total cohort of 25 patients. Results: Median age was 62 years, 52% were female, 24% had ISS stage 3, 57% had high-risk FISH (primarily gain1q). Induction therapy was VRD in 68% (17), daratumumab VRD in 24% (6), CyBorD in 8% (2) patients. Median duration of induction was 4 months (3-6) and median lenalidomide exposure was 5 cycles (1-8), with > VGPR in 88% of patients. (Table 1) Plerixafor 0.24 mg/kg was given in 24 (96%) patients. Median pre-apheresis CD34 count was day 1, 24/uL (3-99) & day 2, 15/uL (5-46). Median total HSC cell yield (CD34+ cells/kg x 10 6) was 5.0 (1.1-16.2), day 1 yield was 3.4 (0.3-16.2) and day 2 yield was 1.9 (0.5-4.6) (Fig1). 88% (n=22) of patients met the primary endpoint of collecting sufficient HSCs in < 2 days of mobilization + apheresis to proceed to transplant, 68% (17) in 1 day (2 x 10 6 CD34+ cells/kg). 3 patients who did not meet primary endpoint successfully collected HSCs with standard GCSF + plerixafor dosing & 2-3 apheresis sessions. Secondary endpoints of 4 and 6 x 10 6 CD34+ cells/kg in < 2 days were met in 68% (17) and 40% (10) patients. MGTA-145+plerixafor was well tolerated. At least 1 treatment emergent AE (TEAE) with MGTA-145 was seen in 60% of patients (grade 1, n= 14, grade 2, n=1). Pain (all grade 1) was most common, seen in 44% (11), with 38% (9) patients experiencing acute onset transient bone pain with MGTA-145 (duration: 7 minutes, range: 3-28). Using the validated Brief Pain Inventory, 56% (14) patients self-reported pain with mobilization vs 40% (10) at baseline. 7/15 patients without baseline pain reported pain with mobilization. An increase for worst pain was seen on mobilization day 1, that returned to the baseline, but no difference for aggregate score of pain severity/interference (linear mixed effects model). At last follow-up, 18 patients have completed transplant with MGTA-145 mobilized graft, with melphalan 200 mg/m 2 in 15 (83%) patients. Median of 3.5 (2.2-8.1) x 10 6 CD34+ cells/kg were infused. All patients have engrafted. Median time to neutrophil engraftment of 12 days (range: 11-15) & platelet engraftment (platelets > 20,000, no transfusion in 7 days) of 17.5 days (15-33) are comparable to historical data (DiPersio et al. 2009). RBC transfusion was needed in 3 (17%) patients. 14 patients have day 100 follow-up, all with durable engraftment. MGTA-145 + plerixafor mobilized grafts had a favorable graft composition. We observed high enrichment for CD90+CD45RA- among CD34+ cells, a CD34 subset of long term engrafting HSCs (median: 36% of CD34+ cells, range 10-66%, N=25). 74% (17 of 23) grafts were minimal residual disease negative with next generation flow cytometry. Conclusions: This is the first study to evaluate the novel G-CSF-free regimen of MGTA-145 + plerixafor for HSC cell mobilization & collection for hematologic malignancies. The study cohort was representative of transplant eligible patients with MM, with 88% patients meeting the primary endpoint. The regimen was well tolerated. Patients achieved timely & durable engraftment. Our data support further development of this regimen for rapid HSC mobilization. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Sidana: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Allogene: Research Funding; Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy. Kumar: Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Adaptive: 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; Carsgen: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Muffly: Pfizer, Amgen, Jazz, Medexus, Pfizer: Consultancy; Astellas, Jasper, Adaptive, Baxalta: Research Funding; Adaptive: Honoraria, Other: fees for non-CME/CE services: , Research Funding. Arai: Magenta Therapeutics: Research Funding. Meyer: Indee, Jura: Consultancy; Orca Biosystems: Research Funding; GigaImmune: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Triursus Therapeutics: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Rezvani: US Department of Justice: Consultancy; Kaleido: Other: One-time scientific advisory board; Nohla Therapeutics: Other: One-time scientific advisory board; Pharmacyclics-Abbvie: Research Funding. Weng: Kite Pharma: Research Funding. Frank: Kite-Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Allogene Therapeutics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding. Shiraz: Kite Pharma-Gilead: Research Funding. Girgenti: Magenta Therapeutics: Current Employment. Goncalves: Magenta Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Patents & Royalties. Schmelmer: Magenta Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Patents & Royalties. Davis: Magenta Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Ended employment in the past 24 months. Shizuru: Jasper Therapeutics, Inc.: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Chair of scientific advisory board; Forty seven Inc: Other: Inventor on a patent licenses by Forty Seven. Forty seven was acquired by Gilead in 2020. Miklos: Pharmacyclics: Patents & Royalties; Kite, a Gilead Company, Amgen, Atara, Wugen, Celgene, Novartis, Juno-Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Allogene, Precision Bioscience, Adicet, Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Takeda, Adaptive Biotechnologies and Miltenyi Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics, Amgen, Kite, a Gilead Company, Novartis, Roche, Genentech, Becton Dickinson, Isoplexis, Miltenyi, Juno-Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Allogene, Precision Biosciences, Adicet, Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies, Novartis, Juno/Celgene-BMS, Kite, a Gilead Company, Pharmacyclics-AbbVie, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, AlloGene, Precision Bioscience, Miltenyi Biotech, Adicet, Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background: Initial studies with venetoclax, a BCL-2 inhibitor, alone or in combination with either dexamethasone or bortezomib and dexamethasone has shown considerable anti-tumor activity in t(11;14) MM with relapsed disease. Based on preclinical studies suggesting synergy when combined with bortezomib and phase 1 data showing efficacy for venetoclax, this combination was compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone (BortDex) in relapsed MM. While the BELLINI (NCT02755597) trial did demonstrate improved PFS with the combination, there were limited number of patients with t(11;14) treated with BortDex. The objective of this study was to assess real-world effectiveness of BortDex in patients with t(11;14) positive relapsed/refractory MM. Patients and methods: This non-interventional, retrospective observational cohort study included patients with t(11;14) MM from the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) retrospective study of t(11;14) MM. From the overall cohort, patients with t(11;14) MM receiving BortDex in ≥2 nd and ≤4 th line were initially selected. The cohort was further limited to patients with no evidence of allogeneic SCT within 16 weeks or autologous SCT within 12 weeks prior to BortDex initiation. Finally, patients non-refractory to prior PI regimen and not receiving BortDex regimen as part of a clinical trial were included in the study. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics along with real-world effectiveness outcomes including best response, overall survival (OS), and time to next therapy (TTNT) as a surrogate measure for progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed. All analyses were descriptive in nature and were conducted using the SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Results: Overall, 144 patients who met the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Median age was 62.5 years, 62% were male. Patients had a median of 1 prior line (range 1-3) at start of BortDex, at a median of 18.4 months (range, 1-100) from diagnosis; 29% had a prior transplant. A PR or better was observed in 53% of patients with BortDex. The median TTNT for this cohort was 8.4 months and median OS was 46.1 months. Conclusions: This retrospective study of non-trial patients with t(11;14) MM provides a benchmark for newer therapies in this patient population for comparison with both venetoclax dexamethasone as well as combinations using the -BortDex backbone. Disclosures Emechebe: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Pharmaceutical/Biotech Companies: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Kumar: Tenebio: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Goldschmidt: Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Molecular Partners: Research Funding; Dietmar-Hopp-Foundation: Other: Grant; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Chugai: Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Johns Hopkins University: Other: Grant. Mateos: Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria; Sea-Gen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene - Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bluebird bio: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria. Kim: Janssen, BMS: Research Funding. Dimopoulos: Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Ludwig: Janssen, Celgene-BMS, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen, Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Handa: Kyowa Kirin: Research Funding; Chugai: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Ono: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria; MSD: Research Funding; Shionogi: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Fernandez de Larrea: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy. Reece: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Millennium: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Raje: Celgene, Amgen, Bluebird Bio, Janssen, Caribou, and BMS: Other. Karve: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Arriola: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Ross: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Durie: Amgen: Other: fees from non-CME/CE services ; Amgen, Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Takeda: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) is the only potentially curative treatment available for acute myelogenous leukemia (AML). It is a medically complicated and resource intensive procedure for which there are patient-, provider- and system-related factors that may impact its utilization. While Medicare coverage for alloHCT may help address a major financial barrier to access, there is still an unmet need due to other factors. This study intended to examine trends and factors associated with utilization of alloHCT and to estimate unmet need for alloHCT among Medicare beneficiaries with AML. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included all patients with a diagnosis of AML identified in the Medicare claims data from 2010 through 2016. Primary patient selection criteria included: primary or secondary diagnosis of AML, age limit (65-74), and continuous enrollment (for at least 180 days after AML diagnosis in Part A and Part B fee-for-service programs). To study trends in utilization, the transplant rates were calculated as the number of patients who received an alloHCT within 180 days and one year of diagnosis (numerator) divided by the total number of patients diagnosed with AML within each diagnosis year (denominator). Transplant rates within one year of diagnosis were further adjusted by patient characteristics, including age group, sex, race, residential region, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI). A multivariable logistic regression was utilized to identify factors associated with the likelihood of receiving alloHCT within one year of diagnosis. Two approaches were applied to estimate unmet need for alloHCT. The first approach (Approach 1) used claims data to identify the potential need for alloHCT among patients who achieved complete remission for at least 90 days; patients who achieved 90-day remission but did not receive alloHCT at any time point were considered to have unmet need. In the second approach (Approach 2), the total number of patients diagnosed with AML in the claims data was run through the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) methodology , which takes estimates of risk level, response to treatment, comorbidity, and early mortality into consideration. Overall estimated need and unmet need from 2010-2015 and over different time periods were evaluated for both approaches. Results: Among the 5,974 patients diagnosed with AML from March 1, 2010 through June 30 th, 2016, 1226 patients (21%) received an alloHCT by the end of 2016. Trend analysis results suggest that utilization of alloHCT increased from 2010 to 2016 (P < 0.0001) (Figure 1). The likelihood of receiving alloHCT within one year of diagnosis was found to be associated with diagnosis year, age, race, geographic region, ECI, and population-level median household income (Table 1). Both approaches estimated that approximately 36% of the diagnosed patients were in need of alloHCT between 2010 and 2015. The overall unmet need was estimated as 59% and 43% based on the claims data approach and the NMDP methodology, respectively. Despite the differences in estimated unmet need between the two approaches, the unmet need for alloHCT was found to trend down over time (Figures 2 & 3). Discussion and Conclusions: Medicare coverage facilitates access to the health care system and receipt of health services when a need for treatment or care is recognized. Utilization of alloHCT has increased over time among Medicare beneficiaries with AML. However, there are persistent differences in utilization of alloHCT by age, race, geographic region, comorbidity, and socioeconomic status, indicating disparities in access to alloHCT among this population. The results of estimated need and unmet need for alloHCT may be affected by the lack of cytogenetics and molecular information in administrative claims. To minimize this limitation, we used NMDP methodology for validation and found a similar estimation of potential need for alloHCT and downward trend in unmet need. Although the unmet need for alloHCT for AML has improved over time, policy efforts, research, and continued education are needed to close the gap between the actual utilization of alloHCT and unmet need for this potentially curative treatment. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Saber: Govt. COI: Other.

Abstract BACKGROUND Validation of the 2016 LANO MRI scorecard for leptomeningeal metastasis failed for multiple reasons. The objective of this joint EORTC Brain Tumor Group and RANO effort was to validate the feasibility of the revised MRI scorecard for assessing response in leptomeningeal metastasis. METHODS Coded paired cerebrospinal MRI of 20 patients with leptomeningeal metastases from solid cancers at baseline and follow-up after treatment and instructions for assessment were provided via the EORTC imaging platform. The kappa coefficient (K) was used to evaluate inter-observer pairwise agreement. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS V9.4 software (Cary, NC). The sponsor of the study was the University Hospital Zurich (2018-00192). RESULTS Thirty-five raters participated, including 9 neuroradiologists, 17 neurologists, 4 radiation oncologists, 3 neurosurgeons and 2 medical oncologists. Among leptomeningeal metastases-related items at baseline, the best median concordance was noted for hydrocephalus (K=0.63), and the worst median for spinal linear enhancing disease (K=0.46). The median concordance for overall response was moderate (K=0.44). Notably, the interobserver agreement for the presence of parenchymal brain metastases at baseline was minimal (K=0.29). Significant differences were observed when considering the specialty of the raters. Only 394 of 700 ratings (56%) were fully completed. Among 394 fully completed ratings, perfect concordance was noted in 293 ratings (74%) when comparing the overall response according to the guidelines provided in the scorecard and the overall response provided by the raters. The main discordances were noted for partial response according to the rater versus stable disease according to the guidelines (n=44), followed by progression according to the raters versus stable disease according to the guidelines (n=23). CONCLUSION Electronic case report forms with "blocking solutions" are probably required to enforce completeness and quality of scoring. These results confirm the necessity of central review and the need for training of MRI assessment in clinical trials.

Abstract BACKGROUND The Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) is a phase II platform trial with Bayesian adaptive randomization and deep genomic profiling to more efficiently test experimental agents in newly diagnosed glioblastoma and to prioritize therapies for late-stage testing. METHODS In the ongoing INSIGhT trial, patients with newly diagnosed MGMT-unmethylated glioblastoma are randomized to the control arm or one of three experimental therapy arms (CC-115, abemaciclib, and neratinib). The control arm therapy is radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide, and primary endpoint is overall survival. Randomization has been adapted based on Bayesian estimation of biomarker-specific probability of treatment impact on progression-free survival (PFS). All tumors undergo detailed molecular sequencing, and this is facilitated with the companion ALLELE protocol. To evaluate feasibility of this approach, we assessed the status of this ongoing trial. RESULTS Since INSIGhT was activated 4.3 years ago, it has expanded to include 12 sites across the United States. A total of 247 patients have been enrolled. Randomization probabilities have been repeatedly adjusted over time based upon early PFS results to alter the randomization ratio from standard 1:1:1:1 randomization. All three arms have completed accrual and efficacy estimates are available based upon comparison to the common control arm in context of relevant biomarkers. There are 87 patients alive and in follow-up, and there are ongoing plans to add additional arms to evaluate further treatments in the future. CONCLUSION The INSIGhT trial demonstrates that a multi-center Bayesian adaptive platform trial is a feasible and effective approach to help prioritize therapies and biomarkers for newly diagnosed GBM. The trial has maintained robust accrual, and the simultaneous testing of multiple agents, sharing a common control arm and adaptive randomization serve as features to increase trial efficiency relative to traditional clinical trial designs.

Abstract BACKGROUND EGFR is amplified in over 50% of glioblastoma and 20-30% have EGFRvIII mutations. Neratinib is a potent inhibitor of EGFR/HER2 approved for metastatic HER2+ breast cancer. To efficiently evaluate the potential impact of neratinib on overall survival (OS) in newly-diagnosed glioblastoma and to simultaneously develop information regarding potential genomic biomarker associations, neratinib was included as an arm on the Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) trial. INSIGhT is a phase II platform trial using response adaptive randomization and deep genomic profiling to more efficiently test experimental agents in MGMT unmethylated glioblastoma and accelerate identification of novel therapies for phase III testing. Initial randomization was equal between neratinib, control, and two other experimental arms but subsequent randomization was adapted based on efficacy as determined by progression-free survival (PFS). We report preliminary results for the neratinib arm. METHODS Patients with newly diagnosed MGMT-unmethylated glioblastoma were randomized to receive either radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide or standard radiochemotherapy followed by adjuvant neratinib (240 mg daily). Treatment continued until progression or development of unacceptable toxicities. The primary endpoint was OS. Association between neratinib efficacy and EGFR amplification was also investigated. RESULTS There were 144 patients (70 control; 74 neratinib). Neratinib was reasonably well-tolerated with no new toxicity signals identified. PFS was compared (HR 0.84; p=0.38, logrank test – not significant) between the neratinib (median 6.05 months) and control (median 5.82 months) arms. For patients EGFR pathway activation the PFS HR was 0.53 (p-value=0.03 – significant, median PFS: neratinib, 6.21 months, control, 5.26 months). However, there was no significant improvement in OS in EGFR amplified/mutated patients (HR 1.05; p-value 0.87) between neratinib (median 14.2) compared to the control arm (median 14.6). CONCLUSION Neratinib prolonged PFS in the EGFR positive subpopulation but there was no overall PFS benefit, or any OS improvement.

Abstract BACKGROUND GSK3β serine/threonine kinase regulates metabolism and glycogen biosynthesis. GSK3β overexpression promotes tumor progression and resistance through NF-κB and p53 apoptotic pathways. GSK3β inhibits immunomodulation by downregulating checkpoints, e.g. PD-L1 and LAG-3, and increasing NK and T-cell mediated tumor killing. 9-ING-41 is a small-molecule, potent, selective GSK3β inhibitor with preclinical activity. In chemoresistant PDX glioblastoma models, 9-ING-41 enhanced lomustine antitumor effect. METHODS Patients with refractory malignancies were treated with 9-ING-41 monotherapy (n=65) or combined with 8 cytotoxic regimens after prior exposure (n=162) in the first-in-human study (NCT03678883). The recurrent gliomas subset was treated with 9-ING-41 monotherapy IV TIW q21day cycles at 3.3, 5, 9.3, 15mg/kg, or combined with lomustine 30 mg/m² PO weekly q84day cycles. Primary objective was safety and tolerability. RESULTS An RP2D of 15mg/kg IV TIW was confirmed across all 9 regimens, no accentuation of chemotherapy toxicity noted. Of 18 glioma patients enrolled, 13 were glioblastoma, 2 anaplastic astrocytomas, 1 anaplastic oligodendroglioma, and 1 diffuse astrocytoma; 6 female, 12 male; median age 52 (30-69) years; median ECOG was 1 (0-2). All received initial radiation and temozolomide (18/18), prior salvage therapies included nitrosoureas (15/18), bevacizumab (8/18), TTFields (6/18), checkpoint inhibitor (4/18). Median recurrences 3 (1-6). NGS alterations included: IDH/wildtype (11), IDH/mutation(3); 1p19q/codeletion(10); MGMT/unmethylated(11), MGMT/methylated(1); EGFR/amplification(6), EGFR/v3mutation(3), TERT/mutation(6), PTEN/loss(3), NF1/rearrangement(2), ATRX/loss (2), TP53/mutation(4), CDKN2A/deletion(2), RB1/loss(1), PALB2/mutation(10). Four patients received 9-ING-41 monotherapy, 14 concurrently treated with lomustine. No SAEs or grade 3/4 AEs attributed to 9-ING-41 noted, only G1/2 vision changes (9/18, 50%), infusion reactions (4/18, 22%). Lomustine-related toxicities included G3/4 thrombocytopenia (3/14, 21%), and G1/2 fatigue (4/14, 28%). Median therapy duration was 55 (4-305); 1 partial response ( >50%) noted with 9-ING-41/lomustine. Median PFS and OS were 1.9 (0.3-11.1) and 6.0 (1.6-16.6) months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS 9-ING-41 plus/minus lomustine is safe and warrants further study in glioma patients.