Citations

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) with CLL/SLL who use unmutated IGHV (u-CLL) have a less favorable outcome with standard chemotherapy than pts who use mutated IGHV (m-CLL). Ibrutinib (ibr) inhibits B-cell receptor signaling through Bruton’s tyrosine kinase and has robust clinical activity against CLL. This integrated analysis of 3 phase 3 studies examined the impact of IGHV status on ibr- and comparator (comp)-treated pts. Methods: Pooled data from 3 studies of ibr (420 mg/d) in CLL/SLL pts (RESONATE: relapsed/refractory [R/R] pts, ibr vs ≤ 24 weeks ofatumumab; RESONATE-2: treatment-naïve [TN] pts ≥ 65 yrs of age [no del17p], ibr vs ≤ 12 cycles chlorambucil; HELIOS: R/R pts [no del17p], ≤ 6 cycles bendamustine-rituximab with ibr vs placebo) were analyzed by IGHV status. Analyses included Kaplan-Meier method (overall survival [OS]; progression-free survival [PFS]); log-rank test (group comparisons); and Cox multivariate analysis (prognostic factors; Table). Results: For 491 ibr- (366 u-CLL, 125 m-CLL) and 494 comp-treated (351 u-CLL, 143 m-CLL) pts with IGHV data, baseline characteristics were similar for u-CLL vs m-CLL, except for the proportions of pts who were TN (17 vs 31%), had bulky disease (60 vs 37%), or had CLL cells with del11q (32 vs 16%). Median follow up was 21.4 mos for ibr and 20.6 mos for comp. PFS and OS were similar for u-CLL and m-CLL ibr-treated pts; u-CLL had poorer outcomes than m-CLL in comp-treated pts, which remained after adjustment for prognostic factors (Table). Ibr treatment was more effective than comp regardless of IGHV status. Incidence of adverse events (AEs) was similar between groups. For ibr vs comp pts (u-CLL/m-CLL): serious AEs: 49% (50%/47%) vs 36.5% (37%/35%); AEs that led to discontinuation: 12% (11%/15%) vs 13% (13%/14%); death within 30 days of last dose: 5% (6%/3%) vs 5% (6%/2%). Conclusions: U-CLL was an adverse predictor of outcome for comp-treated, but not for ibr-treated pts. Table.Efficacy Outcomes in Ibr- and Comparator-Treated Patients by IGHV Mutation StatusIbrutinib (N=491)Comparator (N =494)u-CLL (n=717)m-CLL (n=268)u-CLL(n=366): m-CLL(n=125)u-CLL(n=351): m-CLL(n=143)Ibr(n=366): Comp(n=351)Ibr (n=125): Comp (n=143)PFS24-month rate HR78%:81%10%:32%78%:10%81%:32%0.93a1.99a0.12b0.21bp = 0.78p < 0.0001p < 0.0001p <0.0001Adjusted HRc1.02a1.94a0.11b0.17bp = 0.93p < 0.0001p < 0.0001p < 0.0001OS24-month rate HR88%:89%78%:87%88%:78%89%:87%0.95a1.96a0.49b0.85b,ep = 0.86p = 0.02p < 0.01p = 0.66Adjusted HRc1.21a2.10a0.49bNAp =0.57p = 0.01p < 0.001Response ratesu-CLLm-CLLu-CLLm-CLLIbrCompIbrCompORR, %d8990475189479051p = 0.96p = 0.36p < 0.0001p < 0.0001CR, %d221546224156p = 0.10p = 0.44p < 0.0001p = 0.01CI, confidence interval; CR, complete response; HR, hazard ratio; ORR, overall response rate; NA, not applicable. aHR < 1 favors unmutated. bHR < 1 favors ibrutinib. cMultivariate Cox model adjusted for age, sex, current Rai stage, baseline ECOG performance status score, del11q, del17p, number of prior therapies, and cytopenias. dp value is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test. eInsufficient number of events prevents meaningful analysis, only 13 and 16 events observed in ibr and comp groups, respectively, and 46 (32%) pts in comp arm crossed over to ibr arm; interpret results with caution. Citation Format: Thomas J. Kipps, Graeme Fraser, Steven Coutre, Jennifer R. Brown, Jacqueline C. Barrientos, Paul M. Barr, John C. Byrd, Susan M. O'Brien, Marie-Sarah Dilhuydy, Stephen Devereux, Ulrich Jaeger, Carol Moreno, Paula Cramer, Stephan Stilgenbauer, Asher A. Chanan-Khan, Michelle Mahler, Mariya Salman, Mei Cheng, Anil Londhe, Joi Ninomoto, Angela Howes, Danelle James, Michael Hallek. Unmutated IGHV is not an adverse predictor of outcome to therapy with ibrutinib in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2017; 2017 Apr 1-5; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT158. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-CT158

ObjectiveTo define relationships between the frontal sinus opening, ostia of other frontal recess cells, and endoscopic landmarks and to develop a clinically useful framework to guide frontal sinus surgery.Study DesignRetrospective review.SettingTertiary care academic referral center.MethodsAdult patients with computed tomography (CT) without sinonasal pathology were included. Virtual endoscopy (using OsiriX) and corresponding CT reconstructions were used to identify all visible ostia in the frontal recess and characterize their positions in spaces between the uncinate/agger nasi (U), bulla ethmoidalis (EB), and middle turbinate (MT).ResultsTwo hundred sides in 100 patients (median age 51 years, 62% female) were analyzed. The “center” of each map was defined as the intersection of spaces between U, EB, and MT. The frontal sinus opening was in the “center” in 53% of frontal recesses, lateral to this position in 29%, and anterior in 11%. When the frontal sinus opening was at the “center,” anterior ostia drained frontal Kuhn T cells in 51% and intersinus septal cells in 23%. The skull base attachment of the apical strut of the uncinate process demarcated medial and lateral within the space between U and EB, with the opening to the frontal sinus medial in 68% and lateral in 31%. Left‐right asymmetry in frontal sinus openings was noted in 46% of patients.ConclusionCombining preoperative imaging and knowledge of these anatomic relationships may facilitate more efficient frontal outflow tract identification and instrumentation. This represents the first and largest description of ostial configurations relative to endoscopic structural landmarks.Level of Evidence:4

LBA7008 Background: Treatment options for CLL/ SLL patients (pts) who fail chemoimmunotherapy are limited. We report interim results from a phase III randomized study of ibrutinib (ibr), a first in class covalent BTK inhibitor, vs ofatumumab (ofa) in R/R CLL/SLL. The Data Monitoring Committee recommended this analysis be considered final, based on meeting the primary and a key secondary endpoint. Methods: R/R CLL/SLL pts who failed ≥1 therapy received 420 mg oral ibr daily until progression or IV ofa 300/2000mg for 12 doses. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by an independent review committee (IRC). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), IRC assessed overall response rate (ORR) and safety. Results: Of 391 pts enrolled (median age 67 years; 40% ≥70 years; 57% Rai stage III/IV disease; 30% del 17p), 195 were randomized to ibr and 196 to ofa. Ibr pts had median 3 prior therapies vs 2 for ofa. Median follow-up was 9.4 months (m). Ibr significantly lengthened PFS (median not reached vs 8.1 m; HR 0.215, CI 0.146–0.317, p<0.0001; 78.5% risk reduction), and significantly improved OS (median not reached; HR 0.434, CI 0.238–0.789, p=0.0049) compared with ofa. ORR was 42.6 vs 4.1% (p<0.0001) and ORR+PR with lymphocytosis was 62.6 vs 4.1% for ibr vs ofa. Similar effects were seen in del17p and purine analog refractory subsets. In each arm 2 pts had confirmed Richter’s transformation. Most frequent adverse events (AE) for ibr vs ofa were diarrhea (47.7 vs 17.8%) fatigue (27.7 vs 29.8%), and nausea (26.2 vs 18.3%). Atrial fibrillation was more frequent with ibr (5.1 vs 0.5%). Major hemorrhages were reported in 1.0 vs 1.6% for ibr vs ofa. Drug discontinuation due to AE was 4.1 vs 3.6% for ibr vs ofa. 86% of ibr pts were continuing treatment. 57 pts randomized to ofa with confirmed PD had initiated ibr at cross-over. Conclusions: Compared with ofa, ibr significantly improved PFS, OS and ORR in pts with R/R CLL/SLL. The safety profile was comparable with that previously reported (Byrd NEJM 2013). These results support ibr as a beneficial therapy for R/R CLL patients irrespective of del 17p or purine analog refractory disease. Clinical trial information: NCT01578707.

259 Background: Belinostat is a novel histone deactylase inhibitor which demonstrates preclinical activity in HCC. We report the results of a phase I/II study on belinostat in patients (pts) with unresectable HCC. Methods: Major eligibility criteria included histologically confirmed HCC not amenable to curative treatment; PS ≤ 2; adequate organ function; prior systemic therapy was allowed. In the phase I portion, belinostat was given i.v. on D1-5 every 3 weeks with dose levels of 600, 900, 1200 and 1400 mg/m2/day. In the phase II portion, belinostat was tested at the MTD. Primary endpoint was PFS and secondary endpoints were RR according to RECIST and OS. CT assessment was done every 8 weeks. Results: Phase I portion: a total of 18 pts were accrued; no DLTs were observed at 1400mg/m2/day for 5 days, and this dose was selected for phase II development. Phase II portion: 42 pts were accrued; Median age = 57.5 years; 41 had Child’s A function, and 24 pt had ECOG 0. Sixteen (38%) had previous systemic therapy, and 21 (50%) had previous transarterial therapy. Median follow-up was 20.0 months. The PR and SD rate was 2.4% (1/42) and 45.2% (19/42). Median PFS was 2.64 months (95%C.I. 1.55-3.17) and OS was 6.60 months (95%C.I. 4.53-11.60). Grade 3 or higher toxicities (>5% rate) were abdominal pain (9.5%), (9.5%) hyperbilirubinemia (9.5%), raised ALT (9.5%); anemia (7.1%) and vomiting (7.1%). Conclusions: Belinostat demonstrates disease stabilization in a predominantly pretreated population of pts with unresectable HCC with an acceptable safety profile. Further randomized studies are warranted.Supported in part by N01-CM-62205.

Background: Therapy programs to treat thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) arthritis may engage selective activation and reeducation of thenar muscles, particularly the first dorsal interosseous (FDI) and opponens pollicis (OP) to reduce subluxation of the joint. We describe the effect of simulated selective activation of the FDI and OP muscles upon radiographic subluxation of the thumb CMC joint. Methods: In a cadaver model of CMC subluxation, loads were applied to the FDI, the OP, and then concomitantly at 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% maximal loads and radial subluxation of the joint and reduction in subluxation was measured. Results: Selective activation of the OP, alone, improved the subluxation ratio (SR) in a dose-dependent manner. Selective activation of FDI, alone, demonstrated minimal effects on SR. Concomitant activation of OP and FDI improved the SR across all loading states, and activation of 75% and greater, when compared with FDI activation alone, resulted in a statistically significant improvement in SR to within 10% of the presubluxed joint. Conclusions: Concomitant activation of the FDI and OP acts to reduce subluxation of the thumb CMC joint in a dose-dependent fashion. The OP is likely the predominant reducing force. Hand therapy programs that focus on selective strengthening programs likely function in part to encourage patients to activate the easily palpable and easily understood FDI. Concomitant coactivation of the OP may be the major reducing force to elicit clinical and radiographic reduction of subluxation, improved thumb positioning, and reduction of pain and arthritic symptoms.

Background Healthcare resources vary geographically, but associations between hospital‐based resources and acute stroke quality and outcomes remain unclear. Methods and Results Using Get With The Guidelines‐Stroke and Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care data, we examined associations between healthcare resource availability, stroke care, and outcomes. We categorized hospital referral regions with high‐, medium‐, or low‐resource levels based on the 2006 national per‐capita availability median of 6 relevant acute stroke care resources. Using multivariable logistic regression, we examined healthcare resource level and in‐hospital quality and outcomes. Of 1 480 308 admitted ischemic stroke patients (2006–2013), 28.8% were hospitalized in low‐, 44.4% in medium‐, and 26.9% in high‐resource hospital referral regions. Quality‐of‐care/timeliness metrics, adjusted length of stay, and in‐hospital mortality were similar across all resource levels. Conclusions Significant variation exists in regional availability of healthcare resources for acute ischemic stroke treatment, yet among Get With the Guidelines‐Stroke hospitals, quality of care and in‐hospital outcomes did not differ by regional resource availability.