Citations

AbstractBackgroundMultiple myeloma (MM) measurable residual disease (MRD) evaluated by flow cytometry is a surrogate for progression‐free and overall survival in clinical trials. However, analysis and reporting between centers lack uniformity. We designed and evaluated a consensus protocol for MM MRD analysis to reduce inter‐laboratory variation in MM MRD reporting.MethodsSeventeen participants from 13 countries performed blinded analysis of the same eight de‐identified flow cytometry files from patients with/without MRD using their own method (Stage 1). A consensus gating protocol was then designed following survey and discussions, and the data re‐analyzed for MRD and other bone marrow cells (Stage 2). Inter‐laboratory variation using the consensus strategy was reassessed for another 10 cases and compared with earlier results (Stage 3).ResultsIn Stage 1, participants agreed on MRD+/MRD− status 89% and 68% of the time respectively. Inter‐observer variation was high for total numbers of analyzed cells, total and normal plasma cells (PCs), limit of detection, lower limit of quantification, and enumeration of cell populations that determine sample adequacy. The identification of abnormal PCs remained relatively consistent. By consensus method, average agreement on MRD− status improved to 74%. Better consistency enumerating all parameters among operators resulted in near‐unanimous agreement on sample adequacy.ConclusionUniform flow cytometry data analysis substantially reduced inter‐laboratory variation in reporting multiple components of the MM MRD assay. Adoption of a harmonized approach would meet an important need for conformity in reporting MM MRD for clinical trials, and wider acceptance of MM MRD as a surrogate clinical endpoint.

Purpose Clinical-pathologic features and natural history of patients with isocitrate dehydrogenase ( IDH)-mutant intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) are not well characterized. Here, we sought to describe the natural history, clinical phenotype, and prognostic impact of advanced, IDH-mutated CCA. METHODS We conducted a multicentric, retrospective analysis of patients with IDH-mutated (IDH1 or IDH2) CCA between 2010 and 2020. Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Chi-square test was used to analyze disease control rate (DCR) and overall response rate (ORR). Matched controls were used for comparing survival between patients with and without IDH mutations (mIDH). RESULTS Sixty-five patients with IDH-mutated CCA were included. All patients had intrahepatic CCA. On first-line chemotherapy, median OS and median PFS were 21.2 months and 8.3 months, respectively. Notably, median OS (32.4 v 19.5 months, P = .12) and PFS (18.0 v 8.0 months, P = .12) were not significantly affected by disease status at presentation (locally advanced v metastatic, respectively). Median OS was significantly longer in patients with mIDH (21.2 v 10.5 months; P < .01). First-line gemcitabine-containing regimens had a significantly higher DCR and ORR than non–gemcitabine-containing regimens (DCR: 75% v 33%, P = .01; ORR: 39% v 0%, P = .02). In patients receiving IDH inhibitor therapy, median PFS was 4.6 months with a DCR of 29%. CONCLUSION CCA with m IDH confers a unique subtype resulting in a better survival compared with that of counterparts. IDH inhibitors represent a promising therapeutic option in later lines of therapy in this subgroup.

Currently, there are no internationally accepted consensus guidelines for pathologic evaluation of posttherapy pancreatectomy specimens. The Neoadjuvant Therapy Working Group of Pancreatobiliary Pathology Society was formed in 2018 to review grossing protocols, literature, and major issues and to develop recommendations for pathologic evaluation of posttherapy pancreatectomy specimens. The working group generated the following recommendations: (1) Systematic and standardized grossing and sampling protocols should be adopted for pancreatectomy specimens for treated pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). (2) Consecutive mapping sections along the largest gross tumor dimension are recommended to validate tumor size by histology as required by the College of American Pathologists (CAP) cancer protocol. (3) Tumor size of treated PDACs should be measured microscopically as the largest dimension of tumor outer limits that is bound by viable tumor cells, including intervening stroma. (4) The MD Anderson grading system for tumor response has a better correlation with prognosis and better interobserver concordance among pathologists than does the CAP system. (5) A case should not be classified as a complete response unless the entire pancreas, peripancreatic tissues, ampulla of Vater, common bile duct, and duodenum adjacent to the pancreas are submitted for microscopic examination. (6) Future studies on tumor response of lymph node metastases, molecular and/or immunohistochemical markers, as well as application of artificial intelligence in grading tumor response of treated PDAC are needed. In summary, systematic, standardized pathologic evaluation, accurate tumor size measurement, and reproducible tumor response grading to neoadjuvant therapy are needed for optimal patient care. The criteria and discussions provided here may provide guidance towards these goals.

Abstract Meta-analysis based on individual participant data (IPD) is a powerful methodology for synthesizing evidence by combining information drawn from multiple trials. Hitherto, its principal application has been in questions of clinical management, but an increasingly important use is in clarifying trials methodology, for instance in the selection of endpoints, as discussed in this review. In oncology, the Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive (ARCAD) Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Database is a leader in the use of IPD-based meta-analysis in methodological research. The ARCAD database contains IPD from more than 38 000 patients enrolled in 46 studies and continues to collect phase III trial data. Here, we review the principal findings of the ARCAD project in respect of endpoint selection and examine their implications for cancer trials. Analysis of the database has confirmed that progression-free survival (PFS) is no longer a valid surrogate endpoint predictive of overall survival in the first-line treatment of colorectal cancer. Nonetheless, PFS remains an endpoint of choice for most first-line trials in metastatic colorectal cancer and other solid tumors. Only substantial PFS effects are likely to translate into clinically meaningful benefits, and accordingly, we advocate an oncology research model designed to identify highly effective treatments in carefully defined patient groups. We also review the use of the ARCAD database in assessing clinical response including novel response metrics and prognostic markers. These studies demonstrate the value of IPD as a tool for methodological studies and provide a reference point for the expansion of this approach within clinical cancer research.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Sparse data exist regarding I+V in an off-trial setting, particularly in patients (pts) with progression of disease on either I or V as single agent treatment. The 1-year overall survival (OS) rates with V monotherapy following I range from 75%-91% (Eyre et al, BJH 2019; Jones et al, Lancet Oncol 2018); however, longer-term follow-up of these or other patient cohorts treated with V after I has not yet been reported. Effective options in double-refractory pts are lacking when a clinical trial is not feasible. Here, we report our experience with I+V in these patient groups. METHODS After IRB approval, we reviewed the records of pts seen at Mayo Clinic (between 4/2012-1/2021) who received I+V therapy off-trial for CLL progression. Pts treated with I+V for Richter's transformation were excluded. Time to next treatment (TTNT) was measured from I+V treatment start date to the date of next treatment start or last known treatment status with death as a competing risk. OS was measured from I+V start date until date of death or when the patient was last known alive; OS was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS Thirty-three pts with progressive CLL were treated with I+V (median duration 13.3 months [95% CI: 7.1 months-not estimable (NE)]). The median age was 70 years (range 47-86), 6 (18%) were women, and 20 (65%) had del(17p) or TP53 mutation. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 3 (range 1-15). Additional characteristics at the time of I+V start are shown in Table 1. Median follow-up from start of I+V was 23.8 months. Among 22 pts with prior progression on I only (V-naïve), the median duration of I+V was 14.8 months (95% CI 7.6 months-NE). The median duration on either I or V from the start of combination was 20.3 months (95% CI 8.3 months-NE). The median TTNT was 25.1 months (Figure 1A). Four pts proceeded to cellular therapy (alloSCT [n=3], CAR-T [n=1]) while on I+V. Next therapy (n=9) consisted of Richter transformation treatment (n=2), chemotherapy plus continued I+V (n=1), anti-CD20 plus continued I+V (n=1), duvelisib + I (n=1), TP-0903 + I (n=1), reintroduction of I at disease progression after previously stopping I during I+V therapy (n=1), and reintroduction of I (n=1) or V (n=1) at disease progression after previously stopping I+V. Of 9 pts who did not receive subsequent therapy, 4 pts remain on I+V (median duration 16.4 months), 4 pts continued V after discontinuing I (median duration on V from start of I+V was 21.5 months), and 1 pt discontinued I+V following a second cancer diagnosis and died without receiving additional CLL-directed treatment. Eleven pts received I+V in the double-refractory setting; 9 pts had prior disease progression on sequential I then V and 2 pts had prior disease progression on sequential V then I. The median duration of I+V was 7.5 months (95% CI 4.3 months-NE), and the median duration of either agent from I+V start was 10.8 months (95% CI 7.1 months-NE). The median TTNT was 14.0 months (Figure 1A). Eight pts required additional treatment, consisting of PI3K inhibitor (n=2), anti-CD20 added to I+V (n=1), CAR-T (n=1), anti-CD20 with (n=1) or without (n=1) bendamustine added to continued I, and Richter transformation treatment (n=2). One pt continues I+V (17.4 months ongoing) without further treatment. Two pts died from disease progression without receiving additional treatment. The median OS of all 33 pts was 27.4 months (95% CI 25.9 months-NE; Figure 1B). The median OS of the 22 pts with prior progression on I (V-naïve) was 47.1 months (95% CI 27.7 months-NE), and the median OS of the 11 pts with prior progression on I and V separately was 27.0 months (95% CI 15.5 months-NE). In univariate analyses, prior progression on V was a predictor of shorter OS (HR=3.9; 95% CI 1.4-11.2; p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS Combination I+V therapy in heavily pre-treated CLL pts who have disease progression after I provides durable benefit with a median OS approaching 4 years. In the double-refractory setting, repurposing both drugs as combination I+V therapy can be a useful strategy, despite the short-term disease control, for pts where clinical trial options are limited or not available. Further examination of these approaches in larger cohorts and understanding the operative resistance mechanisms in pts with double-refractory disease are key next studies. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Ding: Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; DTRM: Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Chanan-Khan: BeiGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Honoraria; Ascentage, Starton, Cellectar, NonoDev, Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties: Tabi; Ascentage: Research Funding; Cellectar: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals, NonoDev, Starton: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; BieGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Consultancy. Kenderian: Humanigen, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Wang: TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ailawadhi: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Koehler: AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kay: AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Targeted Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Research Funding; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; CytomX Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Parikh: Pharmacyclics, MorphoSys, Janssen, AstraZeneca, TG Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, AbbVie, and Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Verastem Oncology, and AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: Combination ibrutinib and venetoclax in patients with relapsed CLL.

Abstract Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable form of plasma cell cancer in which primary and secondary chromosomal translocations routinely juxtapose oncogenes to plasma cell-specific super-enhancers. Coincidentally, drugs which target super-enhancers have had success clinically. For example, immunomodulatory imide drugs (IMiDs) degrade super-enhancer-binding pioneer factors IKAROS and AIOLOS, while glucocorticoids (Dexamethasone) and proteasome inhibitors (Bortezomib) have the ability to transrepress or block the processing of super-enhancer-forming NF-κB proteins, respectively. Currently, alternative enhancer-targeting drugs are also in clinical development, like p300 inhibitors which target the acetyl-binding bromodomains and/or histone acetyl transferase activity of the chromatin-regulating coactivator homologs CBP and EP300. Despite showing therapeutic promise, our understanding of how these drugs function, alone or together, remains incomplete. Case in point, we find that IMiD-induced degradation of its target proteins IKAROS and AIOLOS does not guarantee a therapeutic response in vitro, and patients successfully treated with IMiDs eventually relapse; meanwhile, coactivator-targeting therapies like p300 inhibitors are often too toxic in vivo, and lack a therapeutic window. To improve the outcomes of MM patients we need to understand the heterogeneous genetics and transcription-factor milieus of the myeloma enhancer landscape, as well as how to increase the precision of enhancer-disrupting drugs. To accomplish this, our lab utilizes more than 60 human myeloma cell lines that have been extensively characterized at the genetic, proteomic, and drug-therapeutic-response levels. Additionally, we have generated a highly-predictive immunocompetent mouse model (Vk*MYC hCRBN+) that develops human-like MM and is sensitive to both IMiDs and a new class of therapeutics termed "degronimids" (normal mice do not respond to IMiDs or degronimids). Our central hypothesis is that combining a broad coactivator-targeting drug (e.g., the p300 inhibitor GNE-781), with a MM-specific transcription factor-targeting drug (e.g., IMiDs) restricts toxicities to myeloma cells and thus improves the therapeutic window. Currently, we are testing a variety of coactivator-targeting compounds alongside traditional IMiD therapies and other preclinical transcription factor-targeting drugs both in vivo and in vitro. We show that Vk*MYC hCRBN+ mice are exquisitely sensitive to GNE-781, requiring one fourth of the dose needed to treat other cancers and therefore avoiding the neutropenia and thrombocytopenia seen at higher doses. Second, we show that although IMiDs and GNE-781 induce an effective but transient response in vivo as single agents, the combination of the two drugs proved curative, with a progressive deepening of the anti-tumor response occurring even after therapy is discontinued. Ongoing experiments aim to determine how this drug combination, and other coactivator + transcription factor-targeting combinations, permanently disrupt myeloma-specific super-enhancers. Disclosures Neri: BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bahlis: Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy. Boise: AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie/Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chesi: Abcuro: Patents & Royalties: Genetically engineered mouse model of myeloma; Pi Therapeutics: Patents & Royalties: Genetically engineered mouse model of myeloma; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties: human CRBN transgenic mouse; Palleon Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties: Genetically engineered mouse model of myeloma.

Abstract Background: Pts with previously treated R/R aggressive LBCL have compromised health-related QOL (HRQOL). Liso-cel is an autologous, CD19-directed, defined composition, 4-1BB CAR T cell product administered at equal target doses of CD8 + and CD4 + CAR + T cells. In a prespecified interim analysis of TRANSFORM (NCT03575351), a randomized, open-label, pivotal trial, liso-cel demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in the primary endpoint of event-free survival and key secondary endpoints (complete response rate and progression-free survival) in adults with R/R LBCL after failure of first-line (1L) immunochemotherapy compared with SOC, with no new safety signals. Here we present results of the pt-reported outcomes (PRO) analysis from TRANSFORM. Methods: Adults (age ≤ 75 yrs) with R/R LBCL (≤ 12 mo after 1L therapy), who were eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), were randomized to receive either SOC (3 cycles of salvage chemotherapy [CT] and BEAM + ASCT for responding pts) or liso-cel after lymphodepletion. Crossover to receive liso-cel was allowed in the SOC arm for pts who failed treatment. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire - 30 items (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Lymphoma Subscale (FACT-LymS) were administered at randomization (baseline) and on Days 29 (infusion of liso-cel or 2 cycles of salvage CT), 64 (1 mo post liso-cel or completion of CT), 126 (3 mos post liso-cel or 2 mos post ASCT), and Mo 6 and other prespecified timepoints up to Mo 36 or end of study. No PRO data were collected after crossover. The analysis was based on the PRO-evaluable population (pts with a baseline and ≥ 1 post-baseline assessment). Predefined thresholds determined clinically meaningful changes. Global health/QOL (GH/QOL), physical functioning, cognitive functioning, fatigue, pain, and FACT-LymS were the primary domains of interest based on their relevance to the study population and treatment. A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis was performed to assess the between-treatment difference in overall least squares (LS) mean change from baseline for each primary domain, using data collected up to Day 126 for visits with a sample size per arm ≥ 10. Proportions of pts with meaningful change from baseline were assessed for each primary domain up to Mo 6. All analyses were descriptive only. Results: Of 184 randomized pts, 90 (49%) and 85 (46%), respectively, were included in the PRO-evaluable population for the EORTC QLQ-C30 (SOC vs liso-cel n=43 vs 47) and FACT-LymS (n=40 vs 45, respectively). The PRO assessment completion rate from baseline up to Mo 6 was ≥ 45%, which was lower than expected primarily due to operational challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic but was comparable for both arms. In the MMRM analysis, the liso-cel arm had more favorable overall LS mean changes from baseline to Day 126 than the SOC arm in most of the EORTC QLQ-C30 domains and FACT-LymS. In particular, the between-treatment differences for cognitive functioning (−2.09 vs 2.21) and fatigue (3.75 vs −1.95) for SOC versus liso-cel, respectively, exceeded the prespecified minimal important difference threshold (Table); in those domains, the SOC arm deteriorated while the liso-cel arm improved. In individual-level analyses, the proportion of pts with meaningful improvement for fatigue and GH/QOL was higher, while deterioration was lower, in the liso-cel arm versus SOC arm from baseline up to Mo 6 (Figure). At Mo 6, a higher proportion of pts experienced worsened fatigue (71% vs 18%) and a lower proportion experienced improved fatigue (29% vs 47%) in the SOC arm compared with the liso-cel arm; for GH/QOL, a higher proportion of pts worsened (57% vs 18%) and lower proportion improved (14% vs 53%), respectively. For the other primary domains, the proportions of pts with improvement or deterioration favored liso-cel or were similar between arms. Conclusions: Compared with SOC, liso-cel showed favorable improvement in most primary PRO domains, particularly EORTC QLQ-C30 cognitive functioning and fatigue and more pts showed PRO improvements and fewer showed deterioration by Mo 6 with liso-cel. The results were achieved despite only responders remaining in the SOC arm after salvage CT. HRQOL was either improved or maintained after liso-cel treatment in pts with R/R LBCL after failure of 1L therapy. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Abramson: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Seagen Inc.: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy. Arnason: Juno/BMS: Honoraria. Glass: BMS: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Riemser: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Helios Klinik Berlin-Buch: Current Employment. Crotta: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Montheard: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Previtali: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Liu: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Braverman: BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Guo: Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; UCB: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Consultancy; Evidera: Current Employment. Shi: Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Kamdar: ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; KaryoPharm: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; SeaGen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other; Genetech: Other; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy.

Abstract Clinical significance of somatic gene variants needs to be comprehensively characterized for their diagnostic, prognostic and/or therapeutic actionability in patient management. However, challenges remain due to discrepancies in interpretation and reporting of these somatic variants among different testing labs. Therefore, standardized curation, clinical interpretation and reporting of somatic variants in hematologic cancers is critical. To address this issue, the Hematologic Cancer Taskforce (HCT), composed of 52 multi-disciplinary experts including oncologists, molecular pathologists, lab directors, genomic scientists and biocurators, was formed in January 2020 within the ClinGen Somatic Cancer Clinical Domain Working Group (CDWG) with a goal to undertake systematic curation and evidence-based clinical interpretation of genes/somatic variants associated with hematologic malignancies. In collaboration with the Clinical Interpretation of Variants in Cancer (CIViC) (civicdb.org) knowledgebase, HCT members curate, edit, and verify Evidence Items for each variant extracted from peer-reviewed publications. Monthly discussions based on these Evidence Items lead to the preparation of variant Assertions, which summarize the state of the field consensus variant interpretation and include tiering based on the AMP/ASCO/CAP guidelines (PMID: 27993330). FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3) encodes a class III receptor tyrosine kinase expressed in hematopoietic cells. FLT3 mutations, including both internal tandem duplication (ITD) and mutations in the tyrosine kinase domain (TKD), are the most common mutations in acute myeloid leukemia (AML), occurring in approximately 30% of all AML cases. Implementing FLT3 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in different treatment regimens for FLT3 mutated AML patients has led to significantly improved overall survival. Type I FLT3 inhibitors, including midostaurin, gilteritinib, sunitinib, lestaurtinib, and crenolanib, bind to the ATP-binding site when the receptor is in active conformation. Type II FLT3 inhibitors, including sorafenib, ponatinib, and quizartinib, interact with a hydrophobic region directly adjacent to the ATP-binding domain that is only accessible when the receptor is inactive, which prevents receptor activation. Generally in AML cells, type I FLT3 inhibitors prevent activity for both ITD and TKD mutations, while Type II inhibitors target ITD but lack efficiency against TKD mutations. The development of TKD mutations in AML cells with ITD have proved to be a mechanism of acquired, or secondary resistance to Type II FLT3 inhibitors. The HCT is piloting curation assessments of FLT3 alterations, including ITD, TKD and non-TKD variants, in AML. So far, the HCT has curated 75 evidence items for FLT3 somatic variants. FLT3-ITD, as well as D835 and I836 were asserted as tier 1 level A variants based on the prediction of response to gilteritinib in relapsed/refractory AML (PMIDs: 27993330, 31665578, 28645776, 28516360, 27908881). Recent curation activities are focused on FLT3 D839G and N676K, as clinical trials using large AML patient cohorts are lacking in their ability to validate drug response/resistance associations of these two TKD variants due to their low frequency. Functional studies showed both variants result in increased proliferation and protection from apoptosis, supporting the oncogenic potential of these two variants (PMIDs: 26891877, 2468088). FLT3 D839G combined with ITD confers resistance to pexidartinib and ponatinib, both Type II FLT3 inhibitors (PMIDs: 25847190, 23430109). FLT3 N676K predicts response to the Type I FLT3 inhibitor, gilteritinib, when N676K is present alone or in combination with ITD. Interestingly, FLT3 N676K in the absence of ITD predicts response to sorafenib, a Type II FLT3 inhibitor (PMIDs: 32040554, 32984009). However, these results are mostly derived from in vitro studies. Two separate Tier II, Level D Assertions have been submitted for FLT3-ITD&D839G for its response to pexidartinib and ponatinib, and more evidence is being collected to form an Assertion for FLT3 N676K. The complexity of the prediction of response/resistance associated with FLT3 D839G and N676K supports the importance of evidence-based curation and collection for these variants in the context of the overall mutation profile, disease context and specific FLT3 TKIs to clearly define their clinical impact. Disclosures Pullarkat: Stemline Therapeutics: Honoraria.

Background: The Internet is often the first resource used by applicants to evaluate fellowship programs. However, information on these websites can be often incomplete, inaccessible, and/or inaccurate. The primary objective of this study was to examine key factors that orthopedic foot and ankle fellowship applicants use to rank programs. The secondary objective was to assess both the accessibility and availability of the information on orthopedic foot and ankle fellowship program websites. Methods: A Qualtrics survey was distributed via e-mail to those who matched into an orthopedic foot and ankle fellowship position from years 2008-2020. A comprehensive list of orthopedic foot and ankle fellowship programs was created. Program websites were evaluated for accessibility as well as the quality of recruitment and educational content. Results: There were a total of 114 survey responses out of 644 invites (17.7%). The most important factors for establishing a rank list were operative experience, current faculty, and program reputation. Eighty-five percent (41/48) of orthopedic foot and ankle fellowship websites were directly accessible using Google. On average, accessible orthopedic foot and ankle fellowship websites contained only 57% (11.5/20) of the content deemed desirable. Conclusion: Orthopedic foot and ankle websites are widely accessible and have higher recruitment and educational quality content scores compared with previously published data. The most important factors for establishing a rank list are consistent with previous literature. Those who ranked operative experience as one of the most important factors when establishing a rank list did not complete more operative cases than those who did not. Level of Evidence: Level IV.