Citations

11011 Background: CMB305 (C) is an immunotherapy designed to generate an anti-NY-ESO-1 immune response (IR). C consists of a dendritic cell-targeting lentiviral vector encoding NY-ESO-1 gene (LV305), and a TLR-4 agonist NY-ESO-1 recombinant protein plus GLA-SE (G305). A Phase 1 study demonstrated C is safe, generates IR and conveys a median overall survival (mOS) of 23.7 months (15.5, not reached [NR]) for soft tissue sarcomas & 29.2 months (12.2, NR) for synovial sarcoma (SS) (ESMO 2018). We evaluated efficacy and safety of C and atezolizumab (A) vs A alone in NY-ESO-1+ SS and myxoid round cell liposarcoma (MRCL). Methods: A prospective randomized open label phase 2 study of C (LV305 Intradermal Days 0, 14, 42, 70 + G305 Intramuscular Days 28, 56, 84 then q 6wk up to one year (yr)) + A (1200mg IV q3wk) vs A alone in advanced NY-ESO-1+ SS/MRCL. Primary endpoints of OS and progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints of safety, IR, and response rate and post hoc analysis by line of therapy. Results: 88 patients (pts) were enrolled and dosed. Arm C+A: median age 48 yrs, 73% SS, 98% relapsed metastatic, 73% ≥2 prior lines chemotherapy; Arm A: 47 yrs, 67% SS, 84% relapsed metastatic, 53% ≥2 prior lines chemotherapy. Most treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) Grade 1/2, no treatment related deaths. Summary of clinical outcomes. Conclusions: Despite no major differences in PFS and OS between the treatment arms (Arm C+A had more advanced disease and more prior lines of chemotherapy), Arm A +C achieved PRs, a higher level of anti-NY-ESO-1 IR, and pts with IR had numerically superior outcomes. Moreover, the clinical benefit of C+A in earlier lines of therapy warrant further study. Clinical trial information: NCT02609984. [Table: see text]

e20605 Background: Intravenous (IV) fosaprepitant is a potent antiemetic, commonly used in patients receiving chemotherapy. The purpose of this study was to investigate the incidence of IV fosaprepitant-associated infusion site adverse events (ISAEs) among a cohort of breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) chemotherapy at Mayo Rochester. Methods: A retrospective review of electronic medical record (EMR) data was performed for all patients who were initiated on AC chemotherapy from January 2011 to April 2012. Data collected from the EMR included baseline demographics, antiemetic regimen, documentation of ISAEs and type of IV access (peripheral vs. central). Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation or percentages) were summarized overall and by type of IV access and initially administered antiemetic. Results: 148 patients were included, with a median age of 54 years (range 28-76). 98 patients initially received IV fosaprepitant; 44 oral aprepitant; 6 neither. 132 (89%) initially had peripheral IV access and 16 (11%) had central venous access. Overall, 33 patients (34%) experienced an IV fosaprepitant associated ISAE including: erythema (n=22), pain (n=26), swelling (n=12), infusion site hives (n=5), extravasation (n=4), deep venous thrombosis (n=3), superficial thrombosis (n=7), phlebitis/thrombophlebitis (n=5), venous discoloration (n=1), venous engorgement (n=1), venous hardening/induration (n=4) and local scarring (n=1). Only 1 patient (2%) experienced an oral aprepitant associated ISAE, which was infusion site pain. This patient had previously had a fosaprepitant associated ISAE at the same site. All experienced ISAEs occurred in patients with peripheral IV access. Conclusions: The incidence and severity of ISAEs associated with IV fosaprepitant administration among a group of patients receiving doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide chemotherapy is significant and is appreciably higher than what has been noted in other reports. The higher incidence observed is likely related to the predominance of peripheral venous access used in the studied cohort.

e17538 Background: Adherence to guideline-consistent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis is suboptimal. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the magnitude of compliance to institutional guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis using a computerized physician order entry system at a single tertiary care institution. A nurse survey was also performed to evaluate how oncology practices, within a cooperative group, manage clinician orders for the prevention of CINV. Methods: The electronic medical records of 100 consecutive patients were evaluated. The primary endpoint was the incidence of compliance to provide all aspects of institutional guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis for acute (Day 1) and delayed (Days 2-4) CINV for patients receiving high, moderate, low, and minimally-emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC/MEC/LEC/MinEC). Noncompliance was declared if a recommended antiemetic was not prescribed per the guidelines or if additional antiemetics were prescribed. Descriptive analyses were performed on the convenience sample. Logistic regression was applied to determine the association of potential factors with noncompliance. Results: The incidence of compliance on Days 1-4 was 94%. Half of the noncompliant events occurred on Day 1 alone and involved the omission of pre-chemotherapy prochlorperazine in patients receiving LEC (3 of 6, 50%). There was a high-degree of compliance to institutional guidelines for delayed CINV (97%). Patients receiving doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide were numerically less likely to receive institutional guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis, compared to patients receiving other chemotherapy regimens (OR: 0.24 (0.04, 1.36), p-value: 0.05). No other factors were significantly predictive for compliance. The nurse survey demonstrated significant variability amongst the involved institutions, with regards to antiemetic prescribing practices. Conclusions: Computerized physician order entry is associated with impressive adherence to clinician prescribing practices, according to institutional guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis, for preventing acute and delayed CINV.

TPS10099 Background: PDGFRα is a receptor commonly overexpressed in STS. Olaratumab is a fully human IgG1 MAb which specifically binds to human PDGFRα and blocks PDGFR-mediated signaling pathways. Olaratumab demonstrated significant tumor inhibition as a monotherapy and in combination with standard chemotherapy in preclinical human sarcoma xenograft models. A Phase 1b/2 clinical trial for patients with advanced or metastatic STS is currently enrolling patients in 9 sites across the United States; approximately 45 patients have been randomized. Methods: In Phase 1b, patients received olaratumab (15 mg/kg) via intravenous infusion on Days 1 and 8 of each 21-day cycle and D (75 mg/m²) 1 hour after olaratumab on Day 1. Phase 1b was completed without encountering dose-limiting toxicities; enrollment into Phase 2 has begun. The primary endpoint of the Phase 2 portion is to compare progression-free survival in patients with advanced STS when treated with D plus olaratumab versus D alone. Planned enrollment goal for Phase 2 is 130 patients. Patients are required to be ≥ 18 years old with ECOG 0-2, have appropriate organ function and histologically confirmed, measurable, and advanced STS. There is no restriction on the number of prior therapies. Patients are randomized 1:1 to either D plus olaratumab (Arm A) at same dose/schedule as in Phase 1b or D alone (Arm B). All patients can receive dexrazoxane. Upon completion of 8 cycles, patients in Arm A continue with olaratumab monotherapy. Patients in Arm B who develop disease progression during or after treatment can subsequently receive olaratumab monotherapy. Patients are stratified to treatment arms according to PDGFRα expression (positive vs. negative), number of previous lines of treatment, sarcoma subtype, and ECOG performance status. Response assessment occurs every 6 weeks. Exploratory analyses include biomarkers of olaratumab pharmacodynamic activity including PDGF ligands, PDGFR downstream molecules, VEGF, and changes in vascularity of tumor specimens.

10003 Background: Preclinical studies demonstrate synergistic anti-tumor activity by inhibiting mTOR and IGF-1R. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of A12 and TEM in 3 chemo-refractory cohorts: IGF-1R (+) STS (Arm A), IGF-1R (+) bone (Arm B), and IGF-1R (-) bone and STS (Arm C). Methods: An optimal Simon 2 stage design was used for each arm. The primary end-point was progression free survival (PFS) at 12 weeks. Based on historical data, a 40% PFS rate was considered promising and a 20% PFS non-promising (type I/ II error, 0.05/0.10). ≥5 PFSs at 12 weeks were required in the first 19 and ≥16 PFSs were required in a total of 54 pts to consider each arm positive. Key eligibility: measurable disease (RECIST 1.1), age ≥18, 1- 4 priors, ECOG status 0-1. A12 (6 mg/kg) and TEM (25 mg) were administered IV weekly. Pre and post treatment tumor biopsies and plasma for IGF-1 and IGFBP3 were obtained. 20 Sarcoma Centers participated. Results: Starting in 02/2010, 383 pts were tested for IGF-1R by immunohistochemistry (IHC; 54% +) and 171 were treated: mean age 47 (range: 18-80), mean # priors 2.2 (range: 1-4). Grade 3/4 toxicities ≥10%: lymphopenia (12%), mucositis (10%). By intent to treat (ITT) analysis, each arm of the study achieved its primary 12 week PFS end-point (≥16 PFSs): Arm A: 18/56 (32%), Arm B: 19/50 (38%) (4 too early), Arm C: 27/63 (43%). The one-sided 95% CI for 12-week PFS is (0.22, 1), (0.27, 1), and (0.32, 1), respectively. By ITT the median PFS (95% CI) in weeks for each arm is 6.3 (5.9, 12.0), 11.0 (8.0, 18.0) and 11.6 (9.0, 17.9), respectively, and for chondro (n=18), Ewing’s (n=24), and osteo (n=23) only it is 22.6 (5.7, 40.9), 10.4 (5.7, 17.9) and 6.0 (6.0, 18.0), respectively. Westerns on 32 matched pair tumor biopsies indicate inhibition of IGF-1R, pAKT and pS6. Of biopsies on 7 IGF-1R (-) IHC pts (Arm C), 5 were IGF-1R (+) by western. Plasma biomarkers did not correlate with PFS. Conclusions: A12 and TEM met its primary end-point of improved PFS in pts with metastatic sarcoma. This effect was independent of IGF-1R status by IHC. These results support further clinical development of this combination in bone and STS.

LBA1000 The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstract.asco.org at 12:01 AM (EDT) on Monday, June 4, 2012, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2012, issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Monday edition of ASCO Daily News.

SummaryTransplant‐associated thrombotic microangiopathy (TA‐TMA) is a complication of allogeneic transplantation (allo‐HCT). The incidence and risk factors associated with TA‐TMA are not well known. A retrospective analysis from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) was conducted including patients receiving allo‐HCT between 2008 and 2016, with the primary objective of evaluating the incidence of TA‐TMA. Secondary objectives included identification of risk factors associated with TA‐TMA, and the impact of TA‐TMA on overall survival and the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT). Among 23,665 allo‐HCT recipients, the 3‐year cumulative incidence of TA‐TMA was 3%. Variables independently‐associated with increased incidence of TA‐TMA included female sex, prior autologous transplant, primary disease (acute lymphoblastic leukaemia and severe aplastic anaemia), donor type (mismatched or unrelated donor), conditioning intensity (myeloablative), GVHD prophylaxis (sirolimus + calcineurin inhibitor), pre‐transplant kidney dysfunction and acute GVHD (time‐varying effect). TA‐TMA was associated with higher mortality (HR = 3·1, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 2·8–16·3) and RRT requirement (HR = 7·1, 95% CI = 5·7–311·6). This study provides epidemiologic data on TA‐TMA and its impact on transplant outcomes. Increased awareness of the risk factors will enable providers to be vigilant of this uncommon but serious transplant complication. The results will also provide benchmarking for future study designs and comparisons.

Background and Aims The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network recently approved liver transplant (LT) prioritization for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) beyond Milan Criteria (MC) who are down‐staged (DS) with locoregional therapy (LRT). We evaluated post‐LT outcomes, predictors of down‐staging, and the impact of LRT in patients with beyond‐MC HCC from the U.S. Multicenter HCC Transplant Consortium (20 centers, 2002‐2013). Approach and Results Clinicopathologic characteristics, overall survival (OS), recurrence‐free survival (RFS), and HCC recurrence (HCC‐R) were compared between patients within MC (n = 3,570) and beyond MC (n = 789) who were down‐staged (DS, n = 465), treated with LRT and not down‐staged (LRT‐NoDS, n = 242), or untreated (NoLRT‐NoDS, n = 82). Five‐year post‐LT OS and RFS was higher in MC (71.3% and 68.2%) compared with DS (64.3% and 59.5%) and was lowest in NoDS (n = 324; 60.2% and 53.8%; overall P < 0.001). DS patients had superior RFS (60% vs. 54%, P = 0.043) and lower 5‐year HCC‐R (18% vs. 32%, P < 0.001) compared with NoDS, with further stratification by maximum radiologic tumor diameter (5‐year HCC‐R of 15.5% in DS/<5 cm and 39.1% in NoDS/>5 cm, P < 0.001). Multivariate predictors of down‐staging included alpha‐fetoprotein response to LRT, pathologic tumor number and size, and wait time >12 months. LRT‐NoDS had greater HCC‐R compared with NoLRT‐NoDS (34.1% vs. 26.1%, P < 0.001), even after controlling for clinicopathologic variables (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.33, P < 0.001) and inverse probability of treatment‐weighted propensity matching (HR = 1.82, P < 0.001). Conclusions In LT recipients with HCC presenting beyond MC, successful down‐staging is predicted by wait time, alpha‐fetoprotein response to LRT, and tumor burden and results in excellent post‐LT outcomes, justifying expansion of LT criteria. In LRT‐NoDS patients, higher HCC‐R compared with NoLRT‐NoDS cannot be explained by clinicopathologic differences, suggesting a potentially aggravating role of LRT in patients with poor tumor biology that warrants further investigation.

Abstract Background A subset of patients with Peyronie's disease (PD) treated with collagenase clostridium histolyticum (CCH) experience persistent bother and some require surgery. Aim We characterize patients experiencing persistent bother after CCH treatment and identify associations and predictors of surgical intervention/outcomes. Methods We retrospectively identified patients with PD from October 2014 to October 2019 and identified those presenting with persistent bother after CCH treatment by other urologists. Intracavernosal injection and penile Doppler ultrasonography were performed, and subsequent interventions/outcomes were recorded. Baseline characteristics were compared with Student t-test and chi-square test. Predictors of surgical intervention and complications were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Outcomes The primary outcome was surgery after CCH treatment. Secondary outcomes included worsened erectile function, sensory deficits, and penile length change. Results Of 573, 67 (11.7%) patients with PD had undergone prior CCH treatment with median 6 injections (range 2–24). Mean post-CCH PD Questionnaire bother score was 10.1 (SD: 3.1), and total International Index of Erectile Function-5 was 15.3 (SD: 8.7). Mean PD duration was 27.8 (SD: 35.7) months, with a mean composite curvature (MCC) of 69.0° (SD: 33.8) measured after injection. Of 67, 44 (65.7%) patients had MCC &gt;60°. Of 67, 52 (77.6%) patients had indent, narrowing, or hourglass and 26 (38.8%) had hinge effect (buckling of the erect penis with axial pressure) on examination. Calcification was identified in 26 of 67 (38.8%) patients, with grade 3 calcifications comprising 6 of 23 (26.1%) patients. Of 67, 33 (49.3%) patients underwent surgery, with 20 (60.1%) undergoing partial plaque excision and grafting with/without tunica albuginea plication, 6 (18.2%) undergoing tunica albuginea plication alone, and 7 (21.2%) undergoing penile prosthesis with plaque incision and grafting. Surgical patients had greater mean curvature (82.6 vs 55.4, P = .001) and were more likely to have hinge (54.5% vs 20.6%, P = .005). On multivariable analysis, MCC ≥60° predicted patient’s decision for surgery (odds ratio: 2.99, P &lt; .01, 95% confidence interval: 1.62–4.35). There were no associations between surgical complications and number of injections or CCH-associated adverse events. Clinical Implications Patients presenting with persistent bother after CCH treatment often have narrowing and calcifications (despite calcifications being a contraindication to CCH treatment), and those who have hinge or severe curvature are more likely to undergo surgery with low rates of complications. Strengths/Limitations This study's generalizability is limited by selection bias, but useful data are provided for patient counseling. Conclusion Patients with persistent bother after CCH treatment had high rates of indentation/narrowing, plaque calcifications, and MCC &gt;60° at completion of CCH treatment. Surgical intervention is more common with hinge and is safe and feasible in these patients, with low rates of complications. These findings suggest possible negative prognostic factors for CCH treatment, which merit further investigation.

Introduction: Reduced-intensity and non-myeloablative (RIC/NMA) conditioning regimens are frequently used in alloHCT for NHL, because they are associated with decreased non-relapse mortality (NRM) risk in comparison with myeloablative conditioning regimens and allow older patients and patients with comorbidities to receive alloHCT. However, the optimal RIC/NMA regimen in allo-HCT for NHL is not known. Using the CIBMTR database we compared the transplant outcomes between the commonly used RIC/NMA regimens in NHL. Methods: 1823 adult (≥18 years) NHL patients in CIBMTR registry undergoing alloHCT using matched related or unrelated donors, between 2008-2016 were included. Analysis was limited to patients receiving four commonly used RIC/NMA regimens: fludarabine/ i.v. busulfan (6.4mg/kg) (Flu/Bu), fludarabine/melphalan (140mg/m^2) (Flu/Mel 140), fludarabine/cyclophosphamide (Fly/Cy) and Flu/Cy with 2Gy Total Body Irradiation (Flu/Cy/TBI). Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis was limited to calcineurin inhibitor-based regimens. Patients who received post transplantation cyclophosphamide for GVHD prophylaxis were excluded. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included cumulative incidence of NRM, relapse, progression-free survival (PFS) and cumulative incidence of acute and chronic GVHD. Probabilities of OS and PFS were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Multivariable regression analysis was performed for GVHD, relapse/progression, NRM, PFS, and OS. Covariates with a p&lt;0.01 were considered significant. Results: The study cohort was divided into 4 groups; Flu/Bu (n=458), Flu/Cy/TBI (n=89), Flu/Mel 140 (n=885) and Flu/Cy (n=391). The baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. The 4 cohorts were comparable with respect to median patient age, gender, donor type, remission status at alloHCT, and use of prior auto HCT. There was no interaction between NHL histological subtype and type of conditioning regimen. Results of multivariate analysis are shown in Table 2. The Flu/Mel 140 regimen was associated with a higher NRM (HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.37-2.31; p&lt;0.001) when compared to Flu/Bu. Although the risk of relapse with Flu/Mel 140 was lower when compared to Flu/Bu (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66-0.94); p=0.007), this did not result in an improvement in PFS. Moreover, the Flu/Mel 140 cohort had an inferior OS (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.13-1.59; p&lt;0.001) when compared to Flu/Bu. There was no significant difference in terms of OS, PFS, relapse and NRM between Flu/Bu, Flu/Cy and Flu/Cy/TBI. There was no difference in risk of grade 3-4 acute GVHD across the four cohorts and compared to Flu/Cy/TBI, Flu/Mel 140 had a higher risk of chronic GVHD (HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.15-1.65; p&lt;0.001). Four year adjusted PFS was 38% for Flu/Bu, 51% for Flu/Cy/TBI, 39% for Flu/Mel 140 and 35% for Flu/Cy (p=0.07). Four year adjusted OS was 58% for Flu/Bu, 67% for Flu/Cy/TBI, 49% for Flu/Mel 140 and 63% for Flu/Cy (p&lt;0.001). Disease relapse was the most common cause of death across all 4 cohorts. Conclusion: This is the largest analysis comparing the impact of various RIC/NMA conditioning regimens on the outcomes of NHL patients undergoing alloHCT. We report that the choice of RIC/NMA conditioning regimen significantly impacted OS. The most commonly used conditioning regimen, Flu/Mel 140 was associated with a higher NRM and an inferior OS. The Flu/Bu, Flu/Cy, and Flu/CY/TBI conditioning regimens appear to provide comparable OS. Disclosures Ghosh: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; SGN: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Forty Seven Inc: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kharfan-Dabaja:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy. Sureda:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support; Novartis: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Hamadani:Merck: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Otsuka: Research Funding; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.