Citations

Objectives Anal cytology is a modality for anal cancer screening in high-risk women. In this retrospective study, we review risk factors associated with abnormal anal cytology and unsatisfactory anal cytology rates, and correlate findings of cytology with histological results. Methods A retrospective cohort study of anal cytology screening in women at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota from 2002 to 2018 was conducted. Results Three hundred fifty-seven women had a total of 592 anal cytologies performed. Three hundred seventeen women had screening anal cytology, whereas 40 women had anal cytology for surveillance given a history of anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) or anal cancer. An unsatisfactory anal cytology result was found in 14.7%. Risk factors, type of follow-up, and correlation with histologic specimens were also reviewed. Histologic finding of AIN 2/3 correlated with abnormal anal cytology 84% of the time in this cohort. Conclusions High-risk women should be screened on a periodic basis for anal cancer. Anal cytology is one possible modality that can be used. Further insight into AIN progression, regression, recurrence, and outcome after treatment will help direct future screening recommendations.

8014 Background: TCR-MM is defined as being refractory to immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 mAbs, representing an urgent unmet medical need with a median OS of 3-5 months( Pick M et al, Eur J Haem 2018; Gandhi U et al, ASH 2018). Sd has shown a 26.2% overall response rate (ORR) in 122 patients (pts) with TCR-MM in the Phase 2b STORM study ( Chari A et al, ASH 2018). Here, we evaluate the OS of pts in the STORM study with Sd and in pts with bortezomib, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, and daratumumab (“penta”)-exposed, TCR-MM from an observational cohort not receiving Sd. Methods: Data were drawn from STORM and a retrospective cohort from the nationally representative Flatiron Health Analytic Database (FHAD). All pts from both sources had penta-exposed TCR-MM. In order to align study populations, OS was evaluated in pts in STORM whose first therapy after their MM reached TCR status was Sd and in pts in the FHAD who received ≥1 therapy after their MM reached TCR status. The index date for this evaluation was the start date of treatment after their MM reached TCR status. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was performed to assess the survival impact of Sd. In STORM, ORR was assessed by an Independent Review Committee based on IMWG criteria. Results: In the FHAD, 69 pts with TCR-MM were identified. Characteristics of the two groups of pts were similar, except that pts in STORM were more heavily pretreated, had a higher frequency of high-risk MM, a longer time since initial diagnosis of MM, and higher baseline hemoglobin and platelet values. Among the 122 pts in STORM, 64 received Sd as their first therapy after their MM became TCR, and ORR was 32.8%. Among the 69 pts from FHAD, 37 received ≥1 therapy after their MM became TCR. Median OS (N = 64) was 10.4 months for pts receiving Sd in STORM and 5.2 months (N = 37) for pts not receiving Sd in FHAD (HR = 0.49, p = 0.0241). Conclusions: The prognosis of TCR-MM in the real-world population appears very poor. Within the limits of this analysis, median OS of pts receiving Sd as their first therapy after their MM becomes TCR is significantly better than those not receiving Sd, suggesting that Sd may be associated with an OS benefit in pts with TCR-MM. Clinical trial information: NCT02336815.

TPS7570 Background: The DIAL study is testing the efficacy of dual immunomodulation in patients with advanced B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL). Developed by the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), the trial combines the use of a programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitor (nivolumab) with an agonist of the CD27 receptor (varlilumab) in a randomized phase 2 design. CD27, a co-stimulatory receptor, regulates T cell activation through interaction with CD70. T cell exhaustion plays a major role in immune evasion in B-NHL. Varlilumab is an agonistic IgG1 monoclonal antibody that recognizes CD27 leading to prevention or reversal of exhaustion. Varlilumab also demonstrates direct anti-tumoral activity in xenograft models of human lymphoma cell lines via antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity. Phase 1 data supports the safety and tolerability of single-agent varlilumab in advanced hematologic malignancies. We hypothesize that CD27 activation synergizes with PD-1 inhibition resulting in a superior anti-lymphoma effect compared to PD-1 blockade alone. The study will also evaluate the effect of these agents on tumor and immune cells using IHC, mass cytometry (CyTOF), multiplex ELISA, imaging mass cytometry, and whole exome sequencing. Methods: The trial is enrolling patients with advanced aggressive B-NHL. Standard inclusion criteria and prior treatment with at least 2 lines of standard therapy are required. Prior autologous stem cell transplant and/or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy is allowed. Patients with active CNS disease are excluded. Eligible patients will be randomized to treatment with single-agent nivolumab (group 1) or dual immunotherapy with nivolumab and varlilumab. Group 1 is allowed to cross-over at the time of progression. Nivolumab will be administered intravenously (IV) every 2 weeks (240 mg) for 4 months followed by monthly dosing thereafter (480 mg). Varlilumab will be given IV every 4 weeks (3 mg/kg). Response assessment will be done by PET-CT scan every 12 weeks. Primary outcome is overall response rate (ORR) according to the LYRIC criteria. The trial will enroll 48 patients per arm, allowing 80% power to detect at least 20% increase in ORR in the experimental arm (group 2) assuming a 25% ORR in the control arm (group 1). The trial is registered and open to participation to members of ETCTN and EDDOP. Clinical trial information: NCT03038672.

320 Background: While there is no standard therapy for BCR PC following local therapy, intermittent ADT is widely used. We evaluated utility of APA alone, ADT (luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone agonist [LHRHa]) alone, or APA + LHRHa in ADT-naïve BCR PC pts. Methods: Pts with BCR PC after primary definitive local therapy and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time (PSADT) ≤ 12 mo were randomized 1:1:1 to open-label 240 mg APA daily, LHRHa alone, or APA + LHRHa for 12 mo, followed by a 12-mo observation period off therapy. Pts were stratified by PSADT (< 6 vs 6-12 mo) and age (≤ 70 vs > 70 y). Primary end point: mean change from baseline (BL) in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) per Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate total score at 12 mo. Secondary end points included PSA nadir < 0.2 ng/mL by 7 mo, time to PSA progression (TTPpsa), and time to testosterone (T) recovery. Results: 90 pts (APA, n = 29; LHRHa, n = 30; APA + LHRHa, n = 31) were treated for median of 12 mo with similar distribution of BL characteristics across groups: 67% age ≤ 70 y; 67% PSADT < 6 mo. There was no significant difference in HRQoL in APA vs LHRHa at 12 mo, or between LHRHa vs APA + LHRHa groups. At median follow-up of 30-33 mo, TTPpsa in APA, LHRHa, and APA + LHRHa groups was 26 mo, 31 mo, and 36 mo, respectively. Compared to LHRHa alone, APA + LHRHa resulted in a trend toward improved TTPpsa (HR [95% CI] 0.56 [0.23-1.36], p = 0.196), and APA alone resulted in a trend for shorter TTPpsa (HR 1.09 [0.49-2.43], p = 0.824). PSA nadir < 0.2 ng/mL was reached in 89%, 89%, and 97% in APA, LHRHa, and APA + LHRHa pts. Median time to T recovery was similar in LHRHa and APA + LHRHa groups (23 mo vs 24 mo). Grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 17% of APA, 14% of LHRHa, and 29% of APA + LHRHa pts. The only grade 3-4 AE reported in > 1 pt per group was hypertension (APA, 3%; LHRHa, 0; APA + LHRHa, 13%). Conclusions: Addition of APA to LHRHa resulted in a trend for longer TTPpsa and a higher proportion of pts achieving optimal PSA nadir without significant difference in HRQoL or time to T recovery. Observed AEs were consistent with known safety profiles. Results support further evaluation of APA + LHRHa for a specified duration in BCR PC. Clinical trial information: NCT01790126.

PURPOSE To develop recommendations concerning the management of male breast cancer. METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel to develop recommendations based on a systematic review and a formal consensus process. RESULTS Twenty-six descriptive reports or observational studies met eligibility criteria and formed the evidentiary basis for the recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS Many of the management approaches used for men with breast cancer are like those used for women. Men with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer who are candidates for adjuvant endocrine therapy should be offered tamoxifen for an initial duration of five years; those with a contraindication to tamoxifen may be offered a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist/antagonist plus aromatase inhibitor. Men who have completed five years of tamoxifen, have tolerated therapy, and still have a high risk of recurrence may be offered an additional five years of therapy. Men with early-stage disease should not be treated with bone-modifying agents to prevent recurrence, but could still receive these agents to prevent or treat osteoporosis. Men with advanced or metastatic disease should be offered endocrine therapy as first-line therapy, except in cases of visceral crisis or rapidly progressive disease. Targeted systemic therapy may be used to treat advanced or metastatic cancer using the same indications and combinations offered to women. Ipsilateral annual mammogram should be offered to men with a history of breast cancer treated with lumpectomy regardless of genetic predisposition; contralateral annual mammogram may be offered to men with a history of breast cancer and a genetic predisposing mutation. Breast magnetic resonance imaging is not recommended routinely. Genetic counseling and germline genetic testing of cancer predisposition genes should be offered to all men with breast cancer.

283 Background: Cancers of the esophagus, stomach, pancreas, gallbladder, liver, bile duct, colon and rectum will account for 17% of incident cancer diagnoses and 26% of cancer-related deaths in the US in 2019. We developed a methylation-based cfDNA early multi-cancer detection test that also can predict the tissue of origin (TOO) of these and other cancers types; performance of this test for gastrointestinal (GI) tract cancers is reported here. Methods: The Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas (CCGA; NCT02889978) study is a prospective, multi-center, observational, case-control study with longitudinal follow-up, enrolling individuals with cancer ( > 20 cancers, all stages, newly diagnosed) and without cancer. Plasma cfDNA was subjected to a cross-validated targeted methylation (TM) sequencing assay. Methylation fragments were combined across targeted genomic regions and assigned a probability of cancer and a predicted TOO. GI cancer classes were upper GI (esophagus/stomach, n = 67), pancreas/gallbladder/extrahepatic bile duct (n = 95), liver/intrahepatic bile duct (n = 29), and colon/rectum (n = 121). Results: Detection across all GI cancers was 82% (95% CI 77-86) at a > 99% pre-set specificity. Overall predicted TOO accuracy was 92% (88-95) among the samples for which TOO was predicted (6/255 had indeterminate predicted TOO). The table shows performance by GI cancer type. Conclusions: Simultaneous detection at high specificity ( > 99%) of multiple cancer types, including GI cancers across stages at high sensitivity (82%), was shown using TM analysis of cfDNA. Accurate (92%) localization of cancers to specific regions of the GI tract was also achieved. Detection of multiple GI cancers from a single noninvasive blood test could be a practical method for detecting GI and other cancers, and may facilitate diagnostic work-ups. Clinical trial information: NCT02889978. [Table: see text]

Purpose: We sought to evaluate whether additional topical anesthetic, specifically proparacaine 0.5%, improved patient experience with intravitreal injections without hindering antisepsis. Methods: A prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted including 36 eyes of 36 patients undergoing intravitreal injections. Patients were randomized to treatment with additional topical proparacaine 0.5% versus control after undergoing informed consent. All patients prior to intravitreal injection underwent conjunctival culture after one drop of topical proparacaine 0.5% was placed. Half of patients then received an additional drop of proparacaine and then underwent a second conjunctival culture. The other half of patients had a drop of povidone iodine and then a second conjunctival culture. Intravitreal injection followed conjunctival cultures. To evaluate their experience, patients were provided with a survey. Results: In total, 36 patients were enrolled in the study. Three of 36 (8.3%) patients had positive conjunctival cultures after proparacaine eye drops alone. One of 17 (5.8%) patients had a positive conjunctival culture after a second drop of proparacaine. One of 19 (5.3%) patients had a positive culture after proparacaine and povidone iodine. By noninferiority analysis, proparacaine was inferior to povidone iodine ( p = .28). Patient experience surveys did not differ between groups. Conclusion: Patient perception did not significantly differ whether or not additional proparacaine drops were used prior to intravitreal injection in a randomized controlled trial. While proparacaine has some antiseptic properties, these were found to be inferior to those of povidone iodine. Therefore, while povidone iodine is essential for antisepsis, additional proparacaine drops should not interfere with antisepsis.