Citations

Abstract Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) harboring FLT3 internal tandem duplications (ITDs) have poor outcomes, in particular AML with a high (≥0.5) mutant/wild-type allelic ratio (AR). The 2017 European LeukemiaNet (ELN) recommendations defined 4 distinct FLT3-ITD genotypes based on the ITD AR and the NPM1 mutational status. In this retrospective exploratory study, we investigated the prognostic and predictive impact of the NPM1/FLT3-ITD genotypes categorized according to the 2017 ELN risk groups in patients randomized within the RATIFY trial, which evaluated the addition of midostaurin to standard chemotherapy. The 4 NPM1/FLT3-ITD genotypes differed significantly with regard to clinical and concurrent genetic features. Complete ELN risk categorization could be done in 318 of 549 trial patients with FLT3-ITD AML. Significant factors for response after 1 or 2 induction cycles were ELN risk group and white blood cell (WBC) counts; treatment with midostaurin had no influence. Overall survival (OS) differed significantly among ELN risk groups, with estimated 5-year OS probabilities of 0.63, 0.43, and 0.33 for favorable-, intermediate-, and adverse-risk groups, respectively (P < .001). A multivariate Cox model for OS using allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in first complete remission as a time-dependent variable revealed treatment with midostaurin, allogeneic HCT, ELN favorable-risk group, and lower WBC counts as significant favorable factors. In this model, there was a consistent beneficial effect of midostaurin across ELN risk groups.

AbstractDistal biliary strictures (DBS) are common and may be caused by both malignant and benign pathologies. While endoscopic procedures play a major role in their management, a comprehensive review of the subject is still lacking. Our consensus statements were formulated by a group of expert Asian pancreatico‐biliary interventional endoscopists, following a proposal from the Digestive Endoscopy Society of Taiwan, the Thai Association for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Tokyo Conference of Asian Pancreato‐biliary Interventional Endoscopy. Based on a literature review utilizing Medline, Cochrane library, and Embase databases, a total of 19 consensus statements on DBS were made on diagnosis, endoscopic drainage, benign biliary stricture, malignant biliary stricture, and management of recurrent biliary obstruction and other complications. Our consensus statements provide comprehensive guidance for the endoscopic management of DBS.

Background: Patient satisfaction surveys ask patients specific questions about provider behavior such as whether they were satisfied with the provider’s instructions about medications or time spent with the patient. It’s unclear how responses to these surveys can help providers focus on specific behaviors to improve. Methods: In a primary care setting, we analyzed Press Ganey patient experience survey responses. We examined the 10 questions dealing with satisfaction specific to the care provider experience. We used the “Top Box” counts (counts of most favorable responses) and Top Box% (percentage of most favorable response) for categorical and continuous measures of patient satisfaction. Results: For 12 consecutive months, 652 providers of 1014 accumulated at least 300 total responses from patients for the 10 provider-related questions. Only 8 of the 652 providers had significant differences ( P < .05) in Top Box% for the 10 questions. Correlation of responses between the questions were between 0.86 and 0.96. Analysis of variance showed that 87% of the total variation in the Top Box% of the 10 questions was between providers and only 13% within providers. Factor analysis found no independent factors within the 10 questions (ie, a one factor model was sufficient; P < .0001). Conclusion: Patient survey questions appear to ask about specific provider behaviors that contribute to patient experience. However, the responses to 10 different questions are highly correlated and may not give providers or management enough statistically significant information to focus patient experience improvement efforts for individual providers.

Abstract Philadelphia-negative Myeloproliferative Neoplasms (MPN), including Polycythemia Vera (PV), Essential Thrombocythemia (ET), Myelofibrosis (Primary [PMF] and secondary to PV and ET [PPV-, PET-MF] and unclassified MPN (U-MPN), are associated with an increased risk of venous thrombosis in unusual sites, such as splanchnic vessels (SVT). SVT can lead to complications such as portal hypertension, esophageal and gastric varices, ascites,hepatic failure and biliopathy. According to a meta-analysis MPN is the underlying cause of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) in 31.5% and Budd Chiari syndrome (BCS) in 40.9% of cases (Smalberg, 2012); a more in-depth analysis of clinical characteristics and evolution of MPN-associated SVT has been hampered by heterogeneity of cohorts comprising small number of cases. We conducted a retrospective multicenter study in patients (pts) with SVT associated with WHO2008-diagnosed MPN, with the aim to describe patient characteristics, disease course and prognostic factors with potential implications for clinical practice. Data were collected from 16 international hematologic centers in the framework of the Italian AGIMM and the IWG-MRT groups. We collected 519 cases of pts with PVT, splenic or mesenteric vein thrombosis (75.1%) and BCS (24.9%) associated with MPN. We used as comparator a cohort of 1686 controls (Ctr) represented by MPN without (w/o) SVT: 741 ET (43.9%), 684 PV (39.7%), 261 PMF (15.5%). Frequency of MPN associated with SVT was 37.8% ET (n=196), 36.8% PV (n=191), 15.4% MF (n=80), 10% U-MPN (n=52). Median follow-up was 89.9 months (mo) (range 0.5-430). For SVT vs Ctr group females were 54.5% vs 44.4% in PV (P=0.001), 68.4 vs 63.5% (p=0.13) in ET, 63.7% vs 29.1% in PMF (p<0.0001); median age at MPN diagnosis (dg) was 43.5 yr (range 12-90) vs 60.6 yr (range 12-93) (p<0.0001). Age at SVT dg was 44 yr (range 15-85). In 240 cases (46.7%) MPN and SVT dg were coincident, in 121 (23.6%) SVT occurred before MPN dg (median 26 mo, range 4-307) and in 153 (29.8%) during MPN follow up (median 68 mo, range 4-362). JAK2V617F mutation was found in 94% PV vs 94% in Ctr, 84% vs 61% ET (p<0.0001), 88.1% vs 68% PMF (p=0.006) and in 93% U-MPN. Erythropoietin-independent colonies (EEC) were evaluated in 111 SVT pts and found in 80 (72%), accounting for 38/48 PV (79%), 31/44 ET (70.5%), 9/12 PMF (75%) and 2/7 U-MPN (28.6%). At dg, SVT PV pts had lower hemoglobin levels than Ctr: median was 17.4 g/dL vs 18.5 g/dL (p<0.0001) in male, 16.9 g/dL vs 17.7 g/dL (p=0.0006) in female. A co-existing thrombophilic status was found in 38.5% SVT vs 11.8% of Ctr (p<0.0001). Recurrent SVT occurred in 12.2% of pts with a rate of 1.6% person/year (CI 1.2-2.1); risk of venous thrombosis other than SVT was increased in SVT group vs Ctr (p=0.02), with no difference for arterial thrombosis. Hemorrhage was more frequent in SVT group (32%) vs Ctr (7.2%)(p<0.0001), mainly related to esophageal varices, which were present in 66.9% of SVT pts. There was no difference in evolution to MF and acute leukemia (AL) for PV and ET pts with and w/o SVT, while risk of AL was lower in MF with SVT (p<0.00001). Overall survival was shorter in ET pts with SVT vs Ctr (p<0.0001). In PMF survival was better in SVT group (p<0.00001) and was associated with a higher proportion of SVT pts in lowest risk categories: IPSS low 65%, intermediate-1 20%, intermediate-2 10% and high 5% compared with 15%, 34%, 25% and 26% in Ctr group. At last FU, 79/519 pts (15.2%) had died; causes of death were evolution to AL (15.4%), other cancers (13.8%), disease progression without AL (10.8%), SVT (10.8%), hepatic failure and venous thrombosis other than SVT (7.7% each), heart failure and arterial thrombosis (6.2% each), hemorrhage (5.5%), renal failure and infection (4.6% each). Therapy after SVT included anticoagulation in 77%, antiaggregant in 21.2% and combination in 1.8%; 70% received cytotoxic drugs; 12.4% were treated with transjugular porto-systemic shunt. Beta blocker therapy was used in 48.5% of pts and correlated with improved survival (p=0.041) MPN associated with SVT correlated with younger age and female sex and might antedate the clinical phenotype in a quarter of the patients. MPN-associated SVT equally affected PV and ET, was more likely to occur in the presence of JAK2V617F or underlying thrombophilia and predicted recurrent venous but not arterial thrombosis. The apparent association of SVT with better or worse prognosis in PMF and ET, respectively, requires further investigation. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background: Adult acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients with high-risk cytogenetics have a significantly worse survival compared to similarly treated intermediate- or favorable-risk patients. Although prior studies suggest better outcome in high-risk AML patients in first complete remission (CR1) who undergo allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) compared with consolidation chemotherapy, only 40% of patients proceed to HCT. The lack of a matched sibling donor (available in about 33%) should not be a barrier to HCT since alternative donors are available for the large majority of high-risk AMLpatients and recent data suggest outcomes after allogeneic HCT from fully matched unrelated donors are similar to those following matched related donor transplantation. We sought to determine if a prospective organized effort could rapidly identify alternative donors to improve the historical 40% allogeneic HCT rate in high-risk CR1 AML patients ≤ age 61. Secondly, we hypothesized that transplanting significantly more adults with high-risk AML in CR1 would lead to an improved outcome compared with the historical relapse-free survival (RFS) of 22%. Patients and Methods: Adult patients between ages 18 and 60 years with untreated AML were randomized to receive induction therapy with standard cytarabine plus daunorubicin (7+3; n=261), idarubicin with high-dose cytarabine (IA; n=261), or IA with vorinostat (IA+V; n=216). Conventional cytogenetics were obtained at time of enrollment and used to determine risk classification by standard criteria. All patients with high-risk cytogenetics underwent expedited HLA-typing. High-risk patientswere encouraged tobe referred for consultation with a transplant team with the goal of conducting an allogeneic HCT in CR1. Results: Of 738 eligible patients (median age, 49 years; range, 18-60), 159 (22%) had high-risk cytogenetics, of whom 60 (38%), 61 (38%), and 38 (24%) received induction with 7+3, IA, or IA+V, respectively. A total of 107 of the 159 high-risk patients achieved CR/CRi (67%). HCT was performed in 317 of all 738 patients (43%) and 68 (64%) of the high-risk patients received a transplant in CR1 (p<0.001 compared to historical rate of 40%). Twenty-five (37%) had a matched related donor, 31 (45%) had a matched unrelated donor, 3 (4%) had a mismatched related donor, 8 (12%) had a mismatched unrelated donor, and 1 (1%) received an umbilical cord blood transplant. Sixty-six high-risk patients transplanted in CR/CRi have detailed data. Median time to HCT from CR1 was 76 days (range, 20-365). Fifty-seven patients (86%) received a myeloablative regimen and 9 (14%) reduced-intensity conditioning. Reasons for 39 high-risk CR1 patients not receiving a transplant in CR1 were: co-morbidities (n=1), death (n=6), no insurance (n=1), no donor (n=1), physician decision (n=3), patient decision (n=3), relapse (n=6), other (n=10), or unknown (n=8). The 2-year RFS estimate in the entire high-risk cohort is 32%, significantly higher than the 22% historical rate (p=0.05). Median RFS in the high-risk CR1 cohort (n=107) was 10 months [range, 1-32* (censored) months]. RFS and OS were similar among HCT patients using matched related [1 year estimates: 40% (95% CI 27%, 74%) and 56% (37%, 74%), respectively] and matched unrelated [1 year estimates: 52% (37%, 75%) and 56% (37%, 74%), respectively] donors in CR1. The HR (reference = unrelated) for RFS was 0.67 (0.32, 1.37) and for OS was 0.88 (0.41, 1.90). Median overall survival (OS) among all patients in the high-risk cohort (n=159) was 12 months [range, 1-33* (censored) months] and was 18 months [range 3-33* (censored) months] for those transplanted in CR1 (Fig. 1). Conclusions: In newly diagnosed adults with AML age 18-60, early cytogenetic testing with an organized effort to identify a suitable allogeneic HCT donorled to a CR1 transplant rate of 64% in the high-risk group, which in turn led to a significant improvement in RFS over historical controls. Better outcomes in poor prognosis AML patients may be achieved simply by rapidly finding unrelated donors and performing allogeneic HCT in CR1 as soon as possible. Clinical Trials Registry: NCT #0180233; Support: NIH/NCI grants: CA180888, CA180819, CA18020, CA180821, CA180863, CA077202; CCSRI #021039 Figure 1 Overall Survival (OS) among all patients in the high-risk cohort, all high-risk patients achieving CR1, and in those high-risk patients transplanted in CR1. Figure 1. Overall Survival (OS) among all patients in the high-risk cohort, all high-risk patients achieving CR1, and in those high-risk patients transplanted in CR1. Disclosures Othus: Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Radich:Novartis: Consultancy, Other: laboratory contract; ARIAD: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; TwinStrand: Consultancy; Bristol-MyersSquibb: Consultancy. Strickland:Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Ambit: Consultancy; Baxalta: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutica: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Savoie:AbbVie: Consultancy; Lundbeck: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Velgene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy. Sekeres:Millenium/Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stone:Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Xenetic Biosciences: Consultancy; Jansen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; ONO: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celator: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Erba:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; Agios: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Sunesis: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Astellas: Research Funding.

Introduction As use of electronic portal communication with healthcare teams increases, processes that effectively recognize messages that contain critical information are needed. This study aims to evaluate whether certain language and other characteristics of patient portal messages are associated with expressions of self-harm and suicidal ideation. Methods Using patient portal messages sent between 1 January 2013 and 30 June 2017, we searched for words and letter combinations ‘suicid’ (to identify words suicide and suicidal), ‘depress’ (for depression, depressed, depressing), ‘harm himself’ (or ‘herself ‘or ‘myself’), ‘hurt himself’ (‘herself’ or ‘myself’), ‘kill’, ‘shoot’, ‘cutting’, ‘knife’, ‘gun’, ‘overdose’, ‘over dose’ and ‘jump’. Results Of 831,009 messages, 11,174 messages contained one or more search terms. We manually reviewed 7,736 messages for content expressing self-harm or suicidality. Of the reviewed messages, 3.2% indicated thoughts of self-harm or suicide and 2.2% of messages suggested active suicidality. Of those expressing any thoughts of self-harm or suicide, 13.4% mentioned a specific plan, 20% were passively suicidal. Messages indicating thoughts of self-harm and suicide were more common in patients who were unmarried, non-white and younger than 18 years. Factors significantly associated with thoughts of self-harm were messages addressed to psychiatry or containing the letter combinations ‘suicide’, ‘die’, ‘depress’ and ‘harm/hurt my/her/himself’. Discussion Certain letter combinations and patient portal message characteristics may be associated with expressions of self-harm and suicide. These factors should be considered as we develop systems of effectively screening patient portal messages for critical clinical information.

Introduction. Acquired severe aplastic anemia (SAA) is a life-threatening disorder characterized by severe progressive pancytopenia and hypocellular bone marrow. The etiology of acquired SAA is not understood but believed to be related to abnormal immune responses to environmental exposures. We conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) to identify common germline variants associated with SAA. Methods. We identified 895 patients with SAA who underwent related or unrelated hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) with clinical data and pre-HCT blood samples available in the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database and biorepository. Pre-HCT DNA was extracted from blood of patients with SAA and genome-wide genotyping was conducted using the Illumina OmniExpress array. We excluded 93 inherited bone marrow failure cases. The SAA cases were grouped cases into discovery and validation sets based on time of batch sample receipt. Analyses were limited to patients of European ancestry based on principal component analyses to minimize the potential effect of population stratification. Controls were genomically matched and selected from previously scanned cancer-free subjects at the Cancer Genomics Research Laboratory, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, NCI. The final analysis included 534 acquired SAA cases (359 in the discovery set and 175 in the validation set), and 2,455 controls (1,396 in the discovery set, and 1,059 in the validation set). Results. Patients with SAA in this study received HCT between 1989-2015 at a median age of 21 years, 56% were male, and the median time between SAA diagnosis and HCT was 11 months. Strong genome-wide association signals were identified across the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genes encoded at the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) on chromosome 6p21 (Figure 1). The top SNP was located in the P4 binding pocket of the HLA class II gene HLA-DPB1(rs1042151A>G, p.Met105Val, pooled-odds ratio [OR]=1.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.50-2.03, p=1.94x10-13). The expression of HLA-DP in CD19+ cells from 175 healthy donors was significantly different by rs1042151 A>G genotype (p=2.04x10-6) (Figure 2). A second SNP near HLA-B, rs28367832G>A, also reached genome-wide significance (pooled-OR=1.49, 95% CI=1.22-1.78, p=7.27x10-9). Copy-number variant analysis and next generation sequencing also identified somatic, clonal copy-neutral loss-of-heterozygosity affecting class I HLA genes in 8.6% of the SAA cases and none of the controls. Conclusion. This SAA GWAS identified strong association signals between common germline genetic variants in HLA class I and II genes and SAA. The main SNP is associated with changes in HLA-DP expression suggesting a key role for this locus in SAA etiology. This study adds further evidence to the connection between SAA and immune dysregulation. Disclosures Cerhan: Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Lee:Incyte: Research Funding; Syndax: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Kadmon: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding.

M.T.J. and M.D.J. contributed equally; A.G. and F.L.L. contributed equally. Introduction Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) is an autologous anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy that is approved for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) who have failed at least two prior systemic lines of therapy. In the ZUMA-1 trial that led to axi-cel approval, 93% of patients developed cytokine release syndrome (CRS) (Neelapu, Locke et al. NEJM 2018). CRS is a non-antigen-specific toxicity that occurs as a result of CAR T and bystander immune cell activation. Whether lack of development of CRS after treatment with axi-cel is associated with inferior lymphoma outcomes is unknown. Here we evaluate the outcomes of patients that did not develop CRS after receiving axi-cel in a large multicenter cohort. Methods and Results The US Lymphoma CAR T Consortium includes seventeen US academic centers that contribute data independently of manufacturers. As of 8/31/2018, 300 patients were apheresed with intent to manufacture standard of care axi-cel for LBCL. In this study, we analyzed the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population of 276 patients receiving CAR T infusion with a median follow up of 9 months. In this group, 25 patients (9%) did not develop CRS and 251 patients (91%) developed CRS following axi-cel infusion. CRS was graded according to Lee criteria (Lee et al. Blood 2014) or CARTOX (Neelapu SS et al. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2018). At baseline, a higher proportion of patients in the no CRS group had ECOG score of 0-1 (no CRS group 100% vs. CRS group 82%, p= 0.019) and IPI score of 0-2 (no CRS group 72% vs. CRS group 46%, p = 0.019) After CAR T cell infusion, patients who did not develop CRS had a lower chance of developing grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity (no CRS group 4% vs. CRS group 35%, p=0.001), lower rates of ICU admission (no CRS group 8% vs. CRS group 35%, p = 0.006), and shorter length of hospital stay (median 10 days for no CRS group vs 14 days for CRS group, p &lt; 0.001). Of the 25 patients who had grade 0 CRS, 23 (92%%) also had grade 0 neurotoxicity. In univariate analysis, no CRS was associated with lower complete response (CR) rate (no CRS group 40% vs. CRS group 66%, p=0.015) but no statistically significant difference in overall response rate (ORR) (no CRS group 72% vs. CRS group 84%, p= 0.158). In relation to CRS there was no difference in treatment related mortality among the two groups (CRS group 4% vs. no CRS group 4.4%, p = 0.85). In multivariate analysis correcting for confounding features, no CRS was associated with statistically significant lower complete response rate (p = 0.002), but there was no significant difference in ORR (p = 0.13), overall survival (P=0.15), progression free survival (P=0.16), and time to progression (P= 0.14) between the two groups (figure 1.). Conclusions In this large cohort of LBCL patients receiving axi-cel with median follow up of 9 months, patients that did not develop CRS, compared with those that developed CRS, achieved lower rates of complete response but there was no difference in overall response rate, progression free survival, time to progression, overall survival, and treatment related mortality between the two groups. Disclosures Jain: Kite/Gilead: Consultancy. Nastoupil:Bayer: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Spectrum: Honoraria. Lunning:Spectrum: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; OncLive: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Consultancy; DAVA: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; MiRagen: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Consultancy, Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; VANIUM: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy. Reagan:Kite, A Gilead Company: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Oluwole:Pfizer: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. McGuirk:Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Pluristem Ltd: Research Funding; ArticulateScience LLC: Other: Assistance with manuscript preparation; Juno Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding. Deol:Agios: Other: Advisory board; Novartis: Other: Advisory board; Kite: Other: Advisory board. Sehgal:Juno/Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding. Goy:Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; University of Nebraska: Research Funding; Astrazenca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hakensackumc: Research Funding; Hackensack University Medical Center, RCCA: Employment; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work; Takeda: Other: Grants outside of the submitted work; COTA: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: leadership role for profit healthcare company; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; Genentech: Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding. Hill:Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Andreadis:Juno: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Roche: Equity Ownership; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Employment; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Munoz:Incyte: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Fosunkite: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics /Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy; Kyowa: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Chavez:Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bennani:Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board. Vose:Acerta Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Grants, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Grants, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Legend Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Miklos:Becton Dickinson: Research Funding; Miltenyi Biotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AlloGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Precision Bioscience: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite-Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Neelapu:Poseida: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Allogene: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding. Ghobadi:Wugen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; EUSA: Consultancy; Kite Pharma a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Locke:Novartis: Other: Scientific Advisor; Cellular BioMedicine Group Inc.: Consultancy; Kite: Other: Scientific Advisor.

Background: In the SCHOLAR-1 study, the largest published retrospective analysis of outcomes in patients with refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL), the objective response rate (ORR) was 26% and complete response (CR) rate was 7% with available salvage therapies in the pre-chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy era (Crump et al. Blood. 2017). These results served as a benchmark for assessing novel therapies. ZUMA-1 (NCT02348216) is the pivotal, multicenter, single-arm Phase 1/2 study evaluating axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), an autologous anti-CD19 CAR T cell therapy, in patients with refractory LBCL that supported the approval of axi-cel in the United States and Europe. At a median follow-up of 27.1 months, the ORR in ZUMA-1 was 83% and the CR rate was 58% (Locke et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019). Here, we describe comparative analyses of outcomes in ZUMA-1 and SCHOLAR-1 after adjusting for potential imbalances in refractory status between the 2 studies. Methods: Patients in both studies had refractory LBCL defined as stable disease of ≤ 6 months with ≥ 4 cycles of frontline or ≥ 2 cycles of later-line therapy, progressive disease as best response, or relapse ≤ 12 months post autologous stem cell transplant (SCT). To address potential imbalances between studies in refractory status which could affect response and survival outcomes, standardized analyses were performed which equally weighted the proportions of patients by refractory categorization (primary refractory, refractory to ≥ second-line therapy, or relapse after SCT) and presence of post-refractory SCT in each study. Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests and Cox models were used to compare the odds ratio for response and hazard ratio (HR) for survival between ZUMA-1 and SCHOLAR-1. P values were descriptive and were not adjusted for multiplicity. Results: Axi-cel was administered to 101 patients in the pivotal Phase 2 portion of ZUMA-1. In the SCHOLAR-1 analysis, 508 patients were evaluable for response and 497 were evaluable for survival. The median follow-up in ZUMA-1 was 2.3 years, and the median follow-up from the overall SCHOLAR-1 study ranged from 7.6 to 14.8 years across different cohorts. In general, ZUMA-1 patients were more heavily pretreated with more patients receiving ≥ 3 lines of therapy as compared with SCHOLAR-1 (69% vs 23%). ZUMA-1 also had more patients who were refractory to second- or later-line therapy compared with SCHOLAR-1 (76% vs 62%). Fewer patients in ZUMA-1, however, were classified as primary refractory vs those in SCHOLAR-1 (26% vs 45%), and a similar proportion of patients between studies relapsed within 1 year of SCT (21% vs 18%). After standardization, the ORR and CR rate in ZUMA-1 vs SCHOLAR-1 were 72% and 54% vs 22% and 7%, respectively. The odds ratios for ORR and CR rate were 7.2-fold and 11.5-fold higher, respectively in ZUMA-1 vs SCHOLAR-1 (CMH test; P < .0001 for both ORR and CR rate). The 2-year survival rate after standardization was 50% (95% CI, 40% - 59%) in ZUMA-1 and 12% (95% CI, 9% - 15%) in SCHOLAR-1, which translated to a 73% reduction in the risk of death in ZUMA-1 relative to SCHOLAR-1 (HR, 0.27; P < .0001). Conclusions: This standardized analysis of the ZUMA-1 and SCHOLAR-1 studies indicates that treatment with axi-cel in this selected population results in 11.5-fold higher odds of CR and a 73% reduction in the risk of death compared with standard salvage regimens in an unselected population. Although limited by retrospective evaluation and cross-study comparisons, these results support the previous literature indicating that axi-cel is a highly effective treatment option for patients with refractory LBCL. Disclosures Neelapu: Pfizer: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Allogene: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Poseida: Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding. Locke:Novartis: Other: Scientific Advisor; Kite: Other: Scientific Advisor; Cellular BioMedicine Group Inc.: Consultancy. Bartlett:Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Autolus: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Reagan:Kite, A Gilead Company: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Miklos:Celgene-Juno: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy, Research Funding; AlloGene: Consultancy; Kite, A Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Becton Dickinson: Consultancy; Precision Bioscience: Consultancy. Jacobson:Pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Humanigen: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Bayer: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support. Oluwole:Pfizer: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Siddiqi:BeiGene: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Kite, A Gilead Company: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: travel support, Research Funding; PCYC: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Crump:Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Servier: Consultancy. Kuruvilla:Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding. Van Den Neste:Gilead: Other: travel support. Farooq:Celgene: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Research Funding. Navale:Kite, A Gilead Company: Employment, Equity Ownership; Gilead: Equity Ownership; Allogene: Equity Ownership; Cellectis: Equity Ownership; Bluebird Bio: Equity Ownership; Amgen: Equity Ownership; Organesis: Equity Ownership; Jounce: Equity Ownership; Editas: Equity Ownership; Intellia: Equity Ownership. DePuy:Kite, A Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: travel support. Kim:Kite, A Gilead Company: Employment.