Citations

Introduction: Management of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), which accounts for 1% of all cancers, is an area in dire need of therapeutic innovation. In recent years, the introduction of novel agents is one of the major advances in the management of patients with NDMM, in both transplant- eligible and transplant- ineligible candidates. Studies have combined daratumumab, a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody that targets CD38 which is highly expressed on myeloma cells, with proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory agents-based regimens in the first-line treatment of NDMM. The purpose of our study is to explore and consolidate the efficacy of upfront daratumumab combination regimen in patients with NDMM. Methods: We systematically conducted a comprehensive literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE databases and meeting abstracts from inception through June 2019. Phase III RCTs utilizing daratumumab in patients with newly diagnosed/ untreated multiple myeloma were incorporated in the analysis. A generic inverse variance method was used to calculate the estimated pooled hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method was used to calculate the estimated pooled risk ratio (RR) for overall response rate (ORR), including stringent complete response (sCR), CR and very good partial response (VGPR). Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochran's Q -statistic. Random effects model was applied. Results: Three phase III RCTs with a total of 2,528 patients with NDMMwere included.Studies compared daratumumab (D) + bortezomib (V) + melphan (M) + prednisone (P) vs VMP, D + lenalidomide (R) + dexamethasone (d) vs Rd, and DVd + thalidomide (T) vs VTd. The randomization ratio was 1:1 in all studies. The I2statistic for heterogeneity was 0, suggesting homogeneity among RCT. The pooled HR for PFS was statistically significant at 0.52 (95% CI: 0.44-0.61; P < 0.0001). The PFS benefit was observed in all ISS categories, types of immunoglobulin (Ig) and standard risk cytogenetic; ISS I cohort (HR, 0.55; 95% CI: 0.37- 0.82; P = 0.003), ISS II cohort (HR, 0.43; 95% CI: 0.33- 0.55; P < 0.0001), ISS III cohort (HR, 0.63; 95% CI: 0.48- 0.82; P = 0.0006), IgG cohort (HR, 0.56; 95% CI: 0.40- 0.77; P = 0.0003), non-IgG cohort (HR, 0.52; 95% CI: 0.28- 0.97; P = 0.04), and standard risk cytogenetic cohort (HR, 0.43; 95% CI: 0.35- 0.53; P < 0.0001). The pooled HR for PFS in high risk cytogenetic cohort was not statistically significant at 0.76 (95% CI: 0.53- 1.10; P = 0.15). The pooled RR for ORR was 1.13 (95% CI: 1.01-1.26; P = 0.03), sCR was 2.02 (95% CI: 1.33-3.08; P = 0.001), CR was 1.46 (95% CI: 1.20-1.79; P = 0.0002),and VGPR was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.82-1.25; P = 0.93). The pooled RR for negative minimal residual disease (MRD) was 2.54 (95% CI: 1.24-5.20; P = 0.01). Conclusions: Upfront combination regimen with daratumumab significantly improved PFS, ORR, sCR and CR along with negative MRD, compared to control arm in patients with NDMM. The improvement in PFS was noted across all subgroups except in high-risk cytogenetic group. More randomized studies are required to explore further novel agents and to formulate optimal combination regimen to improve survival in this high-risk cytogenetic subset. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Introduction: Selinexor is a novel, oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) which forces nuclear retention and activation of tumor suppressor proteins. Selinexor plus low dose dexamethasone (Sel-dex) was recently approved in the United States based on data from the STORM study wherein, Sel-dex induced an overall response rate (ORR) of 26.2% in patients with penta-exposed, triple-class refractory multiple myeloma. The presence of high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities is known to have a poor prognosis in multiple myeloma, with transient responses. We performed post-hoc analyses to determine the outcomes in patients with relapsed/refractory myeloma treated with Sel-dex based on the baseline cytogenetic abnormalities. Methods: STORM was a phase 2b, open-label study which enrolled patients with relapsed and refractory myeloma. Selinexor 80 mg in combination with dexamethasone 20 mg was administered orally, twice weekly. The primary endpoint was ORR. For this analysis, we pooled 78 patients (48 quad-refractory and 30 penta-refractory) from STORM, part 1 and 122 patients (penta-exposed and triple class refractory) from STORM, part 2 to compare outcomes between high-risk and standard risk cytogenetics groups. High-risk cytogenetics was defined as having at least 1 of the following abnormalities by fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) at baseline: del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16), and gain(1q) in >5% of screened plasma cells. The FISH analyses were performed at a central laboratory and used to assess cytogenetic risk status. Results: Of the 200 patients, 122 (61%) had high-risk disease (del(17p): 36%, t(4;14): 18%, t(14;16): 5%, and gain(1q): 36%). The ORR in high-risk patients was 20.5% (very good partial response [VGPR)]: 5.7% and partial response [PR]: 14.8%) and the ORR was 29.5 % (complete response [CR]: 2.6%, VGPR: 3.8%, and PR: 23.1%) in standard-risk patients. The clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 35.2% in high-risk patients compared with 38.5% in standard-risk patients. Median duration of clinical benefit (DOCB) was 4.4 and 6.2 months in the high-risk and standard-risk patients respectively. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.8 and 4.2 months and overall survival (OS) was 8.6 and 9.4 months in the high-risk and standard-risk patients, respectively. Efficacy by specific cytogenetic abnormality is presented in Table 1 below (Due to the small sample size (n=11), data for the t(14;16) subgroup are not presented separately). Conclusions: Sel-dex demonstrated a similar CBR in patients with high risk and standard risk disease and preserved clinical benefit in heavily pre-treated patients who had rapidly proliferative disease and high-risk cytogenetics at baseline. The benefit was maintained across cytogenetic risk subgroups with a higher ORR in the t(4;14) and gain(1q) subgroups. The DOR and OS was similar across all the subgroups. These analyses support the use of Sel-dex in patients with high-risk cytogenetics and warrant further evaluation of selinexor in combination with other anti-myeloma therapies in high-risk disease. Disclosures Nooka: GSK: Honoraria, Other: advisory board participation; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: advisory board participation; BMS: Honoraria, Other: advisory board participation; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: advisory board participation; Spectrum pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: advisory board participation; Adaptive technologies: Honoraria, Other: advisory board participation; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: advisory board participation; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: advisory board participation. Yee:Adaptive: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Huff:Karyopharm, Sanofi, MiDiagnostics: Consultancy; Member of Safety Monitoring Board for Johnson and Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vogl:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Active Biotech: Consultancy. Chari:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; Karyopharm: 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, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Oncoceutics: Research Funding. Moreau:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Dingli:Karyopharm: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Lonial:Genentech: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding. Dimopoulos:Sanofi Oncology: Research Funding. Vij:Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding. Tuchman:Karyopharm: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Prothena: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Alnylam: Honoraria, Research Funding. Biran:Bristol Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Siegel:Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Richardson:Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Liu:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Joshi:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Shah:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Shacham:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties. Kauffman:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jagannath:Medicom: Speakers Bureau; Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy.

Introduction: New Diffuse Large B-cell (DLBCL) treatments remain a clinical need despite the success of rituximab combined with CHOP chemotherapy (RCHOP), which results in durable responses in 60-70% of patients. Those refractory to, or who relapse following, first-line therapy have a very poor outcome, with only 20% surviving beyond 5 years. Rationally-targeted frontline strategies are needed, especially for those with high-risk disease. Significant advances have been made in the genomic classification of DLBCL, but none have impacted the design of phase III trials for untreated DLBCL patients. Building on new genetic profiling studies to personalize clinical treatment, an NCI initiative, could allow clinicians to add targeted therapies to the RCHOP backbone based on individual tumor signatures. The phase II ECOG-ACRIN1412 trial, which compared RCHOP combined with lenalidomide (R2CHOP) versus RCHOP showed significantly superior event free survival (EFS) and overall survival benefits for those treated with R2CHOP. Herein, we report the profile of a high-risk ABC/non-GCB subset of DLBCL driven by genomic alterations in inflammatory genes that are susceptible to front-line R2CHOP, but continue to experience poor outcome with RCHOP alone. Methods: We studied a total of 196 DLBCL patients. 47 were treated with R2CHOP from an investigator-initiated, open-label, single-arm phase II study (NCT00670358). 149 were newly diagnosed DLBCL cases treated with RCHOP, or R-immunochemotherapy (herein called RCHOP), and followed prospectively through the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE that served as a contemporary cohort. Patients from each treatment group were divided based on their event free survival at 24 months (EFS24). DNA alterations within these populations were identified through whole exome sequencing (WES). Variants were analyzed for their presence in EFS24 achievement or failure groups in both RCHOP and R2CHOP. Both tumor and germline sequencing was performed for 47/47 R2CHOP cases and 49/149 RCHOP cases. Gene expression data from the PanCan panel of 730 B-cell-related genes was analyzed to determine gene expression profiles characteristic of the high-risk/R2CHOP-profile on 59 available non-GCB DLBCL cases (45 RCHOP; 14 R2CHOP). A two-sided comparative marker analysis T statistic test was applied to assess what genes displayed differential expression based on achieving EFS24 in both R2CHOP and RCHOP populations. Positive values represented associations with achieving EFS24 and negative values were associated with cases of EFS24 failure. Results: Three genes were enriched in the RCHOP cases that failed EFS24 but achieved EFS24 with R2CHOP among non-GCB patients: PIM1, SPEN, and MYD88 (L265P), herein referred to as Responder Alterations. In R2CHOP cases, patients with a Responder Alteration had a better overall EFS (P = 0.051) compared to wild type patients. In contrast, RCHOP treated patients with a Responder Alteration in their tumor had a significantly worse overall EFS (P = 0.0004) compared to patients without a mutation. Together, PIM1, SPEN, or MYD88 (L265P) mutations were present in 38.0% (30/79) of all non-GCB cases. Collective R2CHOP and RCHOP EFS24 differential gene expression T values were significantly different for 18 previously-defined signatures. The R2CHOP cases that achieved EFS24 were enriched for genes involved in cell cycle, JAK-STAT, cytokine signaling, and NF-κB pathways based on these signatures and ontology analyses. Lastly, cases with WES and PanCan data were analyzed together to observe differential gene expression patterns between cases with and without signature mutations. These data suggest that R2CHOP disrupts tumors reliant on IRF4, NF-κB, and STAT transcription factors, leading to a loss of proliferative feedback systems. Conclusions: Our combined analysis of DNA and RNA across R2CHOP and RCHOP treatment cohorts identifies a high-risk non-GCB phenotype that encompasses approximately 38% of non-GCB patients, is capable of sustaining JAK-STAT and NF-κB signaling, and is sensitive to R2CHOP. Our study lays the groundwork for a precision therapy approach in DLBCL in which DNA or RNA profiles can be used to identify patients early in treatment who may not benefit from the current standard of care, RCHOP, and who would benefit from the addition of lenalidomide or other targeted agents. Disclosures Gandhi: Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Ansell:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding. Cerhan:Celgene: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Nowakowski:Curis: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Novak:Celgene Coorperation: Research Funding.

Abstract BACKGROUND Diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) is a pediatric brain tumor with dismal prognosis despite initial radiation therapy (RT). The clinical consequences of attempting reirradiation (reRT) in these patients to alleviate both symptomatology and improve prognosis are currently unclear. Thus, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to clarify the efficacy and safety of reRT in DIPG. METHODS Searches of 7 electronic databases from inception to January 2019 were conducted following the appropriate guidelines. Articles were screened against pre-specified criteria. The incidence and duration of clinical outcomes were then extracted and pooled by means of meta-analysis from the included studies. RESULTS A total of 7 studies satisfied all criteria, describing 90 cases of DIPG in which reRT was attempted 11.8–14 months after initial RT. Based on a random-effects model, the incidences of clinical improvement and radiologic response following reRT were 87% (95% CI, 78–95%) and 69% (95% CI, 52–84%) respectively. The incidence of acute serious toxicity was 0% (95% CI, 0–4%). Pooled overall survivals from initial diagnosis, and time of reRT, were 18.0 months (95% CI, 14.2–21.7) and 6.2 months (95% CI, 5.5–7.0) respectively. CONCLUSIONS Based on these results, the clinical consequences of reRT for DIPG when administered appropriately and safely at first progression appear acceptable, and potentially favorable, based on the limited evidence in the current literature. Concerns regarding acute serious toxicity were not realized. It is likely a sub-cohort of all DIPG diagnoses will be most amenable to improved prognosis with reRT, and greater investigation is required to identify their characteristics.

Abstract BACKGROUND While glioblastoma (GBM) is more prevalent in males, studies show that females with GBM tend to have longer overall survival (OS) than males. Pretreatment neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has also proven to be prognostic in GBM, with lower NLR having favorable outcomes. This secondary analysis of a prospective randomized trial of proton vs. photon intensity modulated radiotherapy aims to explore the interaction of gender and NLR on GBM outcomes. METHODS Analysis was performed on the full patient population. Kaplan-Meier methods estimated OS with censoring at last follow-up for those who were alive. Univariate (UVA) and multivariate (MVA)Cox proportional hazards models assessed predictors of OS. RESULTS Of 90 patients, 77 were included (43 males; 34 females) with median age of 52 years (range: 26–82 years). Median OS was longer for females than males (30.7 vs 18.2 months, p=0.004). On UVA, patients with NLR below median value (NLR= 3.1) tended to have longer OS than those above median, though not meeting statistical significance (23.1 vs. 17.9 months, p=0.051). Difference in OS was statistically significant in females (OS 36.4 months NLR >median vs. 16.7 months NLR< median, p=0.002), but not in males (OS 17.8 months NLR >median vs. 19.1 NLR< median, p=0.95). MVA analysis was consistent, with female gender predicting reduced hazard ratio (HR) (0.28, p=0.034) and females with below median NLR showing a reduced HR over those with above median (0.28, p=0.005). Again, males did not benefit (HR 0.90, p=0.77). CONCLUSION Consistent with prior publications, females and all patients with lower pre-treatment NLR with newly diagnosed GBM had longer OS. However, combining these two factors revealed that the benefits from lower pre-treatment NLR were conferred only in females with no impact on males. This different impact of NLR between genders may suggest innate immune differences in gender during response to malignancy.

Abstract BACKGROUND Treatment of temporal lobe glioma (TLG) frequently includes partial or complete temporal lobectomy (TL) followed by radiotherapy (RT). However, there are two approaches for temporal resection cavity RT, 1) standard target volumes (STV) targeting the entire TL resection cavity, dura, and peri-tumoral brain parenchyma or 2) modified target volumes (MTV) targeting only the adjacent peri-tumoral brain parenchyma. We report patterns of failure and a dosimetric comparison of these approaches. MATERIALS AND METHODS This was a retrospective review of 49 patients with WHO grade II-IV TLG who underwent partial or complete TL and post-operative RT between 1998 and 2018. Progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS The median patient age was 56 years (range,21–76). Patients were diagnosed with glioblastoma (n=32,65%), anaplastic glioma (n=10,20%) and low-grade glioma (n=7,14%). Treatment included partial TL with STV (n=33,67%), partial TL with MTV (n=5,10%), complete TL with STV (n=8,16%) and complete TL with MTV (n=3,6%). Mean RT dose was 60 Gy (range,40–76) in 30 fractions (range,15–39). At median follow-up time of 18 months (range, 3–161), 44 patients (90%) experienced recurrence: 34 (77%) in-field, 5 (11%) out-of-field, and 5 (11%) both in- and out-of-field. Among the 39 in-field failures, the location of recurrence included brain parenchyma (n=38,97%), ventricle (n=6,15%), and dura (n=5,13%). No patient experienced isolated dural recurrence regardless of tumor grade, extent of TL, or radiation volume. Median PFS was 20 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15–24). RT volume (STV vs. MTV) was not associated with worsened PFS (hazard ratio: 1.1, 95% CI: 0.5–2.6). MTV was associated with significant reductions in mean or max doses to brain stem, optic chiasm, optic nerves, hippocampus, and pituitary compared to STV. CONCLUSION Omitting RT to the entire TL cavity may reduce dose to multiple normal tissues with no detriments in dural recurrence or PFS.

Abstract PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE Dose constraints for re-irradiation of recurrent primary brain tumors are not well-established, especially for treatment volumes too large for stereotactic radiotherapy. This prospective trial was performed to test dose constraints for conventionally-fractionated re-irradiation of recurrent primary brain tumors MATERIALS/METHODS A single-institution, prospective trial of 21 adults with recurrent brain tumors was performed. Electronic dosimetry records from the first course of radiation (RT1) were obtained and deformed onto the simulation CT for the second course of radiation (RT2). Treatment plans for RT2 were developed that met protocol-assigned dose constraints for RT2 alone and the composite dose of RT1+RT2. Dose constraints were also based on histology and interval since RT1. The primary endpoint was the rate of symptomatic brain necrosis after RT2. RESULTS Twenty one adults enrolled from March 2017 to May 2018. Twelve had glioblastoma, four had oligodendroglioma, two had anaplastic astrocytoma, and one each had choroid plexus papilloma, hemangiopericytoma, and pleomorphic xanthroastrocytoma (PXA). Twenty patients were treated with VMAT and one was treated with proton CSI. Median RT1-RT2 interval was 45 months (range, 9–141 months). Median RT2 dose was 42.8 Gy (range, 17.5–60 Gy). Median PTV volume was 208 cc (range, 7–1537 cc). Median imaging followup was 9 months (range, 1–20 months). Two months after RT2, the patient with PXA developed a trapped temporal horn adjacent to the RT2 treatment volume; pathology from emergent resection revealed necrotic brain tissue. The patient recovered fully and lived another 18 months until dying of disease progression. No other patient developed symptomatic radionecrosis. Median overall survival from RT2 for all patients was 11 months (range, 3–20 months). CONCLUSION Re-irradiation can be performed with conventionally fractionated schemes. Given the low rate of symptomatic radionecrosis, the dose constraints described here are a starting point for future studies of conventionally fractionated re-irradiation.

Abstract PURPOSE To compare tumor progression based on clinical radiological assessment and on Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria between GBM patients treated with proton radiotherapy (PT) vs. photon intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). METHODS Eligible patients were enrolled on the described prospective phase II trial and had MR imaging at baseline and follow-up beyond 12 weeks from treatment completion. ‘Clinical’ progression was based on a radiology report of progression in combination with changes in treatment due to suspected disease progression. A single blinded observer applied RANO criteria to determine the RANO-based tumor progression. RESULTS Of 90 enrolled patients, 66 were evaluable, with median follow-up of 19.8 (Range: 3.2–65.1) months; median of 22.6 months for PT (n=25) vs. 18.9 months for IMRT (n=41). Median time to progression (TTP) was 7.9 months based on clinical progression criteria (8.1 months IMRT, 6.3 months PT) and 7.2 months (7.3 months IMRT, 5.7 months PT) by RANO criteria (p=ns for all). Median ‘clinical’ progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.7 (Range: 6.4–11.1) months; 8.9 months IMRT vs. 8.7 months PT (p=0.065). Median RANO PFS was 8.3 (range, 5.8–11.6) months: 8.3 months IMRT vs. 6.9 months PT (p=0.226). There were 14 discrepant cases: 3 had progression based on ‘clinical’ but not RANO criteria, and 11 had progression based on RANO but not ‘clinical’ criteria. CONCLUSION Based on this secondary analysis of a randomized trial of PT vs. IMRT for GBM, there was no difference in tumor progression relative to treatment technique used. There was no statistical difference in PFS noted between clinical and RANO-based assessments, but RANO criteria identified progression more often than clinical assessment, and TTP was shortened with the use of RANO criteria alone. Further development of tumor assessment tools that improve consistency and accuracy of determining tumor progression are needed to guide therapeutic trials in GBM.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Prospective studies for adult medulloblastoma (MB) are scarce and management guidelines are largely derived from pediatric experience and retrospective data. However, adult MB is a distinct disease for which limited data exist regarding clinical characteristic, prognostic factors, outcome based on upfront treatment, or patterns of recurrence. METHODS 200 patients (≥18 years at diagnosis) were identified from 1978 to 2017. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS Median age at diagnosis 29 (18–63); 111 (55.5%) standard-risk (SR), 59 (29.5%) high-risk (HR), 30 (15%) unknown. 188 (94%) and 97 (48.5%) underwent radiotherapy and upfront chemotherapy, respectively. Median PFS: 6.28 years (4.9–11.2); median OS: 8.8 (7.8–12.4) years. Median time to first recurrence: 8.2 (5.1-not reached); 5-year recurrence-free rate: 71% in SR and 45% in HR patients. Survival after first recurrence: 2 years (1.64–2.4). Documented recurrence and risk group were associated with survival (HR 30.4, p< 0.0001 and 2.33, p< 0.001), but metastatic status and local vs. distant recurrence were not. The effect of upfront chemotherapy on survival did not reach statistical significance in SR patients. The use of chemotherapy regimens with or without vincristine or containing cisplatin vs. carboplatin, did not alter the survival outcome. In a subgroup of 57 SR patients who were seen at initial diagnosis and for whom complete staging and treatment information were available 3 and 5-year PFS were 94% (88%, 100%) and 76% (66%, 86%); OS at 5 years, 94% (87%, 100%). CONCLUSION No statistically significant difference was noted in outcome of patients treated without vincristine or with carboplatin instead of cisplatin, suggesting attenuated upfront regimens could be considered to reduce toxicity. Adult MB patients recur late and have a poor post-recurrence survival, therefore long-term follow-up, development of molecular risk-adjusted upfront treatment, and optimization of rescue treatments are needed.

Key PointsClinical, research and mentorship experiences in hematology are positively associated with fellows' plans to pursue hematology-only careers.