Citations

INTRODUCTION The cerebral cortex underlies our complex cognitive capabilities. Variations in human cortical surface area and thickness are associated with neurological, psychological, and behavioral traits and can be measured in vivo by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Studies in model organisms have identified genes that influence cortical structure, but little is known about common genetic variants that affect human cortical structure. RATIONALE To identify genetic variants associated with human cortical structure at both global and regional levels, we conducted a genome-wide association meta-analysis of brain MRI data from 51,665 individuals across 60 cohorts. We analyzed the surface area and average thickness of the whole cortex and 34 cortical regions with known functional specializations. RESULTS We identified 369 nominally genome-wide significant loci ( P < 5 × 10 −8 ) associated with cortical structure in a discovery sample of 33,992 participants of European ancestry. Of the 360 loci for which replication data were available, 241 loci influencing surface area and 66 influencing thickness remained significant after replication, with 237 loci passing multiple testing correction ( P < 8.3 × 10 −10 ; 187 influencing surface area and 50 influencing thickness). Common genetic variants explained 34% (SE = 3%) of the variation in total surface area and 26% (SE = 2%) in average thickness; surface area and thickness showed a negative genetic correlation ( r G = −0.32, SE = 0.05, P = 6.5 × 10 −12 ), which suggests that genetic influences have opposing effects on surface area and thickness. Bioinformatic analyses showed that total surface area is influenced by genetic variants that alter gene regulatory activity in neural progenitor cells during fetal development. By contrast, average thickness is influenced by active regulatory elements in adult brain samples, which may reflect processes that occur after mid-fetal development, such as myelination, branching, or pruning. When considered together, these results support the radial unit hypothesis that different developmental mechanisms promote surface area expansion and increases in thickness. To identify specific genetic influences on individual cortical regions, we controlled for global measures (total surface area or average thickness) in the regional analyses. After multiple testing correction, we identified 175 loci that influence regional surface area and 46 that influence regional thickness. Loci that affect regional surface area cluster near genes involved in the Wnt signaling pathway, which is known to influence areal identity. We observed significant positive genetic correlations and evidence of bidirectional causation of total surface area with both general cognitive functioning and educational attainment. We found additional positive genetic correlations between total surface area and Parkinson’s disease but did not find evidence of causation. Negative genetic correlations were evident between total surface area and insomnia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, depressive symptoms, major depressive disorder, and neuroticism. CONCLUSION This large-scale collaborative work enhances our understanding of the genetic architecture of the human cerebral cortex and its regional patterning. The highly polygenic architecture of the cortex suggests that distinct genes are involved in the development of specific cortical areas. Moreover, we find evidence that brain structure is a key phenotype along the causal pathway that leads from genetic variation to differences in general cognitive function. Identifying genetic influences on human cortical structure. ( A ) Measurement of cortical surface area and thickness from MRI. ( B ) Genomic locations of common genetic variants that influence global and regional cortical structure. ( C ) Our results support the radial unit hypothesis that the expansion of cortical surface area is driven by proliferating neural progenitor cells. ( D ) Cortical surface area shows genetic correlation with psychiatric and cognitive traits. Error bars indicate SE. IMAGE CREDITS: (A) K. COURTNEY; (C) M. R. GLASS

LBA2010 The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstract.asco.org at 7:30 AM (EDT) on Sunday, June, 2, 2013, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2013, issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Sunday edition of ASCO Daily News.

1007 Background: Determining optimal adjuvant chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer depends on efficacy and toxicity. We sought to determine if T is equivalent to AC but with reduced toxicity. Methods: Pts with operable breast cancer with 0-3 positive nodes were enrolled on a 2x2 factorial design study which addressed (1) superiority of 6 vs. 4 cycles of therapy (previously reported, Shulman, JCO 2012) and (2) equivalence of single-agent T to standard AC, defined as upper bound of 95% confidence interval (CI) of hazard ratio (HR) of T vs. AC < 1.30 for the primary endpoint of relapse-free survival (RFS). A planned target of 567 RFS events required 4,646 pts with 4 yrs FU. At activation in 2002, T (80mg/m2) was q1wk for 12 or 18 wks and AC (60/600 mg/m2) was q3wk for 4 or 6 cycles. In 2003 (570 pts enrolled) schedules were revised to 4 or 6 cycles q2wk for both T (175 mg/m2) and AC. The 6-cycle arms were dropped in 2008 (3,171 pts enrolled) due to slow accrual. Relative effectiveness of T to AC is shown by hazard ratio (HR). Logrank p-values are measures of discordance but are not relevant for the equivalence question and are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Results: After enrolling 3,871 pts, the study closed in 2010 due to slowing accrual. With a median follow-up of 6.1 yrs there are 437 RFS events. The HR of 1.26 (95% CI: 1.05-1.53; p = 0.02) does not allow a conclusion of equivalence of T with AC. With 266 deaths the HR for overall survival (OS) is 1.27 (95% CI=1.00-1.62; p = 0.05), favoring AC. The estimated absolute advantage of AC at 5 yrs is 3% (91 vs. 88%) for RFS and 1% (95 vs. 94%) for OS. All 9 treatment-related deaths were in pts receiving AC and are included in the survival analysis. The incidence of Grade 3+ toxicity for AC vs T was 33% vs. 4% for hematologic toxicity and 36% vs 22% for non-hematologic toxicity. Conclusions: This trial did not show equivalence of T to AC, a conclusion that is very unlikely to change with additional follow-up. T was less toxic than AC. Clinical trial information: CDR0000069444/NCT00041119.

1 The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstract.asco.org at 7:30 AM (EDT) on Sunday, June, 2, 2013, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2013, issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Sunday edition of ASCO Daily News.

LBA1000 The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstract.asco.org at 12:01 AM (EDT) on Monday, June 4, 2012, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2012, issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Monday edition of ASCO Daily News.

4521 Background: Expression of PDL1 by RCC has been associated with aggressive histology and poor survival. Tissue obtained from the patients enrolled in the IL-2 Select Trial, a prospective, single arm, multicenter CWG study, was analyzed by IHC to determine if PDL1or PDL3 expression predicted for response to initial or subsequent therapy. Methods: Paraffin embedded tumor tissue was stained for PDL1 and PDL3 expression, and results were correlated with RECIST defined response to IL2 treatment. Tumor tissue was considered positive for PDL1 if >5% of the tumor membranes stained for the marker. A cutoff of 10% was used for PDL3. Duration of subsequent VEGFR/mTOR inhibitor therapy was also correlated with tissue PDL1/3 expression. Results: 120 eligible pts were enrolled; 115 had clear cell histology. The overall response rate (ORR) to IL2 was 25% (30/120) with a median OS of 40.6 months. 113 tumors were stained. 18 (16%) were PDL1+. ORR was 19% and 50% in the patients PDL1- and PDL1+ tumors, respectively (p=0.012). 85 (75%) tumors were PDL3+. ORR was 10.7% and 29.4% in the PDL3- and PDL3+ tumors, respectively (p=0.075). In the 17 patients who were positive for both PDL1 and PDL3, ORR was 52.9%. In the 27 pts who were negative for both PDL1 and PDL3, ORR was 11.1%. 69 patients received at least 1 dose of a VEGFR TKI as next therapy following IL2 treatment. 66 tumors were stained. Pts who were PDL1+/PDL3+ had a shorter duration on VEGFR TKI therapy compared to pts who were PDL1-/PDL3- (see Table). Conclusions: This small, retrospective analysis suggests that PDL1 and PDL3 tissue expression may predict for better response to IL2. PDL1 expression has been suggested as a possible predictor of response to anti-PD1 therapy. The current data suggests that its expression may predict for benefit to other immune therapies. PDL3 (+/- PDL1) expression appears to correlate to less benefit from subsequent VEGFR TKI therapy. Funded by NCI SPORE Grant # 5 P50 CA101942-08. [Table: see text]

AbstractBackgroundThe addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy improved outcomes for patients with metastatic colon cancer. E5204 was designed to test whether the addition of bevacizumab to mFOLFOX6, following neoadjuvant chemoradiation and definitive surgery, could improve overall survival (OS) in patients with stage II/III adenocarcinoma of the rectum.Subjects, Materials, and MethodsPatients with stage II/III rectal cancer who had completed neoadjuvant 5-fluorouracil-based chemoradiation and had undergone complete resection were enrolled. Patients were randomized to mFOLFOX6 (Arm A) or mFOLFOX6 with bevacizumab (Arm B) administered every 2 weeks for 12 cycles.ResultsE5204 registered only 355 patients (17% of planned accrual goal) as it was terminated prematurely owing to poor accrual. At a median follow-up of 72 months, there was no difference in 5-year overall survival (88.3% vs. 83.7%) or 5-year disease-free survival (71.2% vs. 76.5%) between the two arms. The rate of treatment-related grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) was 68.8% on Arm A and 70.7% on Arm B. Arm B had a higher proportion of patients who discontinued therapy early as a result of AEs and patient withdrawal than did Arm A (32.4% vs. 21.5%, p = .029).The most common grade 3–4 treatment-related AEs were neutropenia, leukopenia, neuropathy, diarrhea (without prior colostomy), and fatigue.ConclusionAt 17% of its planned accrual, E5204 did not meet its primary endpoint. The addition of bevacizumab to FOLFOX6 in the adjuvant setting did not significantly improve OS in patients with stage II/III rectal cancer.Implications for PracticeAt 17% of its planned accrual, E5204 was terminated early owing to poor accrual. At a median follow-up of 72 months, there was no significant difference in 5-year overall survival (88.3% vs. 83.7%) or in 5-year disease-free survival (71.2% vs. 76.5%) between the two arms. Despite significant advances in the treatment of rectal cancer, especially in improving local control rates, the risk of distant metastases and the need to further improve quality of life remain a challenge. Strategies combining novel agents with chemoradiation to improve both distant and local control are needed.

Abstract Background Diabetes is a prognostic factor for some malignancies, but its association with outcome in patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) is less clear. Methods This cohort study was nested within a randomized trial of first-line chemotherapy and bevacizumab and/or cetuximab for advanced or metastatic CRC. Patients were enrolled at 508 community and academic centers throughout the National Clinical Trials Network. The primary exposure was physician-documented diabetes at the time of enrollment. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events. Tests of statistical significance were two-sided. Results Among 2326 patients, 378 (16.3%) had diabetes. The median follow-up time was 6.0 years. We observed 1973 OS events and 2173 PFS events. The median time to an OS event was 22.7 months among those with diabetes and 27.1 months among those without diabetes (HR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.13 to 1.44; P &lt; .001). The median time to a PFS event was 9.7 months among those with diabetes and 10.8 months among those without diabetes (HR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.30; P = .02). Patients with diabetes were more likely to experience no less than grade 3 hypertension (8.1% vs 4.4%; P = .054) but were not more likely to experience other adverse events, including neuropathy. Conclusions Diabetes is associated with an increased risk of mortality and tumor progression in patients with advanced or metastatic CRC. Patients with diabetes tolerate first-line treatment with chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies similarly to patients without diabetes.

Abstract Introduction: The most effective initial therapy for older adults with CLL has not yet been established due to the lack of comparison of chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) and targeted therapy with the Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib. CIT has been the gold standard since studies showing that addition of CD20 antibody to chemotherapy prolongs survival. Bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) is one standard, more aggressive CIT regimen for patients (pts) age 65 or older. While ibrutinib has been FDA approved for untreated CLL since 2016, it has only been compared to chlorambucil, which is relatively ineffective, and never before to aggressive CIT. Additionally, the benefit of the addition of rituximab to ibrutinib in this setting has not been prospectively studied in a phase 3 trial. As part of a randomized phase 3 trial, the Alliance sought to answer these important clinical questions. Pts and Methods: Alliance A041202 is a multicenter NCI National Clinical Trials Network phase 3 study comparing BR (Arm 1) with ibrutinib (Arm 2) and the combination of ibrutinib plus rituximab (Arm 3) to determine whether ibrutinib-containing regimens are superior to CIT in terms of PFS. Additionally, this study sought to determine if adding rituximab to ibrutinib would prolong PFS over ibrutinib alone. At time of progression, pts on Arm 1 could cross over to Arm 2. Eligible pts were those age ≥ 65 years with previously untreated, symptomatic CLL. Pts had a CrCl ≥ 40 mL/min, bilirubin ≤ 1.5 x ULN, and no significant life-limiting intercurrent illness or need for warfarin treatment. Pts were stratified based upon Rai stage, Zap-70 methylation performed centrally, and del(17)(p13.1) or del(11)(q22.3) by local interphase cytogenetics and were randomized 1:1:1 to each arm. With 166 pts per arm, the trial was powered to detect an improvement in 2-year PFS from 61% in Arm 1 to 75% in Arms 2 or 3 (HR=0.586) using two one-sided log-rank tests with type I error rate of 2.5% and 90% power. The Alliance Data and Safety Monitoring Board approved the data release after meeting the protocol-defined efficacy threshold at a planned interim analysis with a one-sided critical value of 0.001538. These data were locked July 2, 2018; updated results will be presented at the meeting. Results: Between 12/9/2013 and 5/16/2016, 547 pts were registered and randomized (Arms 1: 183, 2: 182, and 3: 182). Median age was 71 years and 67% of pts were men. High-risk Rai stage (stage III/IV) was seen in 54%, unmethylated Zap-70 in 53%, and del(17p) or del(11q) by local FISH in 28%. Local vs centralized FISH was performed for del(11q) and del(17p) with agreement between local and central results in 94% (Kappa=0.80) and 97% (Kappa=0.76) of pts, respectively. 525 (96%) pts were eligible and included in the primary PFS analysis (Arms 1: 176, 2: 178, and 3: 171). With median follow-up of 32 months (mo), median PFS was 41 mo in Arm 1 and has not been reached in Arms 2 or 3 (HR comparing Arm 2 to 1 is 0.40 with one-sided p&lt;0.0001; HR comparing Arm 3 to 1 is 0.41 with one-sided p&lt;0.0001; HR comparing Arm 3 to 2 is 1.01 with one-sided p=0.48). 2-year PFS estimates were 74%, 87% in 2, and 88% in Arms 1, 2, and 3 respectively. At this time, there are no significant differences in overall survival (OS) among arms (p=0.87), median OS has not been reached for any arm, and 2-year OS estimates were 95%, 90%, and 94% in Arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Adverse events (AEs) were compared among arms using Fisher's exact tests. Grade 3+ treatment-emergent AEs were seen in 428 of 537 evaluable pts with 61%, 41%, and 38% of pts experiencing Grade 3+ heme AEs (p&lt;0.0001) and 60%, 72%, and 71% of pts experiencing Grade 3+ non-heme AEs (p=0.03) in Arms 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Grade 5 AEs were seen in 5 (2.8%), 14 (7.8%), and 14 (7.7%) pts (p=0.07). Unexplained or unwitnessed death over the entire observation period was seen in 2 (1.1%), 7 (3.9%), and 4 (2.2%) pts (p=0.24) in Arms 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Conclusions: This international phase 3 trial demonstrates that ibrutinib produces superior PFS to standard CIT in older pts with CLL and justifies it as a standard of care treatment for pts age 65 and older. The addition of rituximab does not prolong PFS with ibrutinib. While ibrutinib represents a major therapeutic advance, toxicities and also cost justify future efforts to reduce the need for long-term continuous treatment. Support: K23CA178183, R01CA183444, U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171, Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01886872 Figure. Figure. Disclosures Ding: Merck: Research Funding. Bartlett:Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; ImaginAB: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding. Brander:BeiGene: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; DTRM: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding. Barr:AbbVie, Gilead: Consultancy. Parikh:Gilead: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Coutre:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lozanski:Novartis: Research Funding; BI: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Stem Line: Research Funding; Coulter: Research Funding; Beckman: Research Funding. Larson:Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; BristolMyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Erba:Amgen: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Juno: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Astellas: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee. Owen:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Teva: Honoraria. Abramson:Bayer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Humanigen: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy.