Citations

Background Panobinostat (Pano), a pan-histone deacetylase inhibitor, is approved for the treatment of relapsed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone (FVd) in patients who have received ≥2 prior lines of therapy, including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD). The pivotal phase 3 PANORAMA 1 trial, which used intravenous (i.v.) bortezomib, demonstrated significant progression-free survival benefit with FVd compared with placebo-Vd; however, adverse events (AEs) were also more frequent (San-Miguel J. et al., Lancet Oncol. 2014). The randomized phase 2 PANORAMA 3 study was conducted to optimize FVd by comparing three regimens with varying dose and schedule of Pano and by incorporating subcutaneous (s.c.) bortezomib. Methods PANORAMA 3 (NCT02654990) was a randomized, open-label, international, multicenter phase 2 study conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Eligible patients were ≥18 years old with 1‒4 prior lines of therapy, including an IMiD. Patients refractory to bortezomib were excluded. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to Pano 20 mg three times weekly (TIW; the currently approved dosing regimen; Days 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12), Pano 20 mg twice weekly (BIW; Days 1, 4, 8, 11), or Pano 10 mg TIW (Days 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12), all administered in 21-day cycles. Randomization was stratified by number of prior treatment lines (1 vs 2 vs 3 or 4) and by age at screening (≤75 vs >75 years). For Cycles 1-4, all patients ≤75 years old received s.c. bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 BIW (Days 1, 4, 8, 11) and oral dexamethasone 20 mg (Days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12). Patients aged ≤75 years from Cycle 5 onwards, and patients >75 years for all cycles, received bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 weekly (Days 1 and 8) and dexamethasone 20 mg on Days 1, 2, 8, and 9. Patients were treated until progressive disease or death, or until discontinuation due to toxicity or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR; IMWG 2011 criteria) after up to 8 treatment cycles by Independent Review Committee assessment. Secondary endpoints included best response, time to response (TTR), duration of response (DOR) and safety. Results In total, 248 patients were randomized (Pano: 20 mg TIW, N=82; 20 mg BIW, N=83; 10 mg TIW, N=83) and 241 patients received treatment (Pano: 20 mg TIW, N=79; 20 mg BIW, N=82; 10 mg TIW, N=80). Mean (SD) age was 65 (9) years; 55% of patients were male. Overall, patients had a median (range) time since diagnosis of 49 months (7‒242) and a median (range) of 2 (1-4) prior lines of therapy; 17% and 2% of patients were refractory to lenalidomide and pomalidomide, respectively. In total, 68% of patients had relapsed and 32% had relapsed/refractory disease. High-risk molecular findings were present in 15% of patients, with either del(17p) or t (4;14) at screening by fluorescence in situ hybridization. For the Pano 20 mg TIW, 20 mg BIW, and 10 mg TIW arms, respectively, median (range) number of treatment cycles completed was 9 (1; 50), 8 (1; 40) and 7 (1; 39); ORR (95% CI) after up to 8 treatment cycles was 62% (51; 73), 65% (54; 75), and 51% (39; 62); median TTR was 1, 2, and 3 months, with a median (95% CI) DOR of 22 (14, not estimable), 12 (9, 21), and 11 (6, 14.5) months. Best responses are presented in Table 1. In the Pano 20 mg TIW, 20 mg BIW, and 10 mg TIW arms, respectively, treatment-related AEs Grade ≥3 were reported in 78%, 72%, and 54% of patients; serious AEs were reported in 54%, 48%, and 44% of patients; and discontinuations due to AEs occurred in 29.5%, 28%, and 15% of patients, respectively. Most common treatment-emergent AEs (≥20% patients) are presented in Table 2. Grade ≥3 diarrhea occurred in 11.5%, 10%, and 5% of patients, respectively. There were 14 (6%) on-treatment deaths during the study (20 mg TIW, n=5; 20 mg BIW, n=3; 10 mg TIW, n=6), with none causally related to therapy and with 12 of 14 directly attributable to progressive disease. Conclusion In patients with RRMM, the 20 mg TIW and 20 mg BIW dosing regimens provided favorable outcomes, with most durable and deepest responses observed in the 20 mg TIW arm. The rate of AEs, including diarrhea, with Pano 20 mg TIW was lower than those observed with the same dosing regimen in PANORAMA 1, suggesting s.c. administration of bortezomib improves tolerability compared with i.v. administration. Moreover, all three regimens of FVd proved generally manageable; Pano 20 mg TIW had greatest efficacy, while 10mg TIW proved best tolerated. Disclosures Schjesvold: Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Oncopeptides: Research Funding; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, SkyliteDX, Takeda: Honoraria. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees. Lech-Marańda:Roche, Amgen, Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Roche, Novartis, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, Amgen, Gilead, AbbVie, Sanofi: Consultancy. Spicka:Celgene, Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Hajek:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; PharmaMar: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy. Wróbel:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda, Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, AbbVie, Teva, Sandoz: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sureda Balari:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck Sharpe and Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Beksac:Janssen&janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Deva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Goncalves:Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, Bayer, Novartis, Merck, Bayer, Celgene, GSK, BMS: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Bladé Creixenti:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Chari:Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Secura Bio: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnology: Honoraria; Array BioPharma: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Glaxo Smith Kline: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; The Binding Site: Honoraria. Lonial:JUNO Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Abbvie: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Onyx: Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria. Spencer:Haemalogix: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmamar: Other; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; TheraMyc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Other: Grant/Research Support; Takeda: Honoraria, Other, Speakers Bureau; Antegene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Maison-Blanche:Chiesi Pharmaceutical, Sanofi, Novartis: Honoraria. Moreau:Novartis: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Richardson:Celgene/BMS, Oncopeptides, Takeda, Karyopharm: Research Funding. San-Miguel:Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Takeda, Sanofi, Roche, Abbvie, GlaxoSmithKline and Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Introduction Approximately 15-20% of treatment-naïve patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) have CD20-low tumors, while CD19 is homogeneously expressed in >90% of cases of DLBCL. CD20-low DLBCL is associated with poor response to rituximab-based regimens (Johnson NA, et al. 2009). CD19 functions as a positive regulator of B-cell receptor signaling and is important for B-cell activation and proliferation and is therefore an attractive therapeutic target in addition to CD20. Tafasitamab (MOR208) is a humanized, Fc-enhanced, anti-CD19 monoclonal antibody with improved antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity and phagocytosis. Monotherapy with tafasitamab has shown clinical activity in relapsed/refractory (R/R) non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (Jurczak W, et al. 2018). In the Phase II, single-arm L-MIND study (NCT02399085) in patients with R/R DLBCL, combined treatment of tafasitamab with lenalidomide resulted in a high proportion of patients having a complete response (Salles GA, et al. 2020). First-MIND (NCT04134936) is a Phase Ib, randomized study of tafasitamab + R-CHOP (Arm A) or tafasitamab + lenalidomide + R-CHOP (Arm B) in patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL. Here, we report data from the safety run-in phase. Study design and methods Patients must be aged ≥18 years, treatment naïve, with histologically confirmed DLBCL not otherwise specified and have intermediate- to high-risk disease (International Prognostic Index [IPI] 2-5) and an ECOG performance status of 0-2. Known double- or triple-hit lymphoma and transformed lymphoma are excluded. Treatment consists of six 21-day cycles of tafasitamab (12 mg/kg intravenously [IV], on Day [D] 1, 8 and 15) in addition to R-CHOP (Arm A) or tafasitamab (12 mg/kg IV, on D1, 8 and 15) + lenalidomide (25 mg orally, on D1-10) in addition to R-CHOP (Arm B). Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor prophylaxis was mandatory in all patients. The study includes a safety run-in phase and a main phase. In the safety run-in phase, 24 patients were enrolled. The primary objective is to assess safety; secondary objectives include ORR, PET-CR rate at end of treatment, PFS, event-free survival, long-term safety, pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity of tafasitamab. Exploratory objectives include the assessment of circulating cell-free tumor DNA. Approximately 60 patients will be recruited in 9 countries across Europe and the US. Results Recruitment is ongoing. Thirty-six patients were randomized; 18 in each arm. The data presented for the safety run-in phase consist of 24 patients: 13 patients in Arm A and 11 patients in Arm B. All completed the first treatment cycle; 88% of patients entered into Cycle 2 and 50% of patients entered into Cycle 3 of treatment. At baseline, their median age was 67 years (range: 47-76; Arm A) and 65 years (range: 40-74; Arm B). Overall, 33% of patients were male and 67% female; IPI scores were: IPI 2, 33%; IPI 3, 42%; IPI 4, 25%. Most patients had advanced stages III/IV (92%) and approximately 50% had bulky disease. Cell of origin was determined to be germinal center B-cell (GCB) DLBCL in 13%, non-GCB DLBCL in 42% and not yet classified in 46% of cases. A total of 248 treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) by system organ class were documented: 111 in Arm A and 137 in Arm B. Grade ≥3 neutropenia was observed in 54% (Arm A) and 46% (Arm B) of patients. Thrombocytopenia Grade ≥3 was observed in 8% (Arm A) and 18% (Arm B) of patients. Diarrhea, fatigue and vomiting were comparable between the two arms. Febrile neutropenia was uncommon in both arms, with one event each (Figure 1). To date, 23 serious AEs were observed: 11 in Arm A (Grade 2, 1; Grade 3, 6; Grade 4, 4) and 12 in Arm B (Grade 2, 3; Grade 3, 7; Grade 4, 2). One suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction was reported in Arm B - pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia. No treatment-associated deaths occurred. Conclusions R-CHOP can be safely combined with tafasitamab or tafasitamab + lenalidomide in patients with treatment-naïve DLBCL. Toxicities appear to be similar to what is expected with R-CHOP alone or in combination with lenalidomide. Enrollment is ongoing and updated safety and early efficacy data will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Belada: Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Nowakowski:NanoString: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. André:Takeda: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Roche: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Amgen: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding; Celgene: Other, Research Funding; CHU UCL Namur, site Godinne, Yvoir, Belgium: Current Employment; Bristol-Myers-Squibb: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company). Stevens:Amgen, MorphoSys: Consultancy. Trněný:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Amgen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses. Pérez Persona:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jannsen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy. Klöpfer:MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Brackertz:MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Lohrmann:MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Lahiry:MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Shah:MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Fingerle-Rowson:MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Brugger:MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Burke:Epizyme: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy.

Abstract Background More than 90% of reported penicillin allergies are found inaccurate when formally assessed. These allergy labels lead to decreased utilization of first-line beta-lactam antibiotics, and adverse clinical outcomes. The objective of this study was to develop a multi-disciplinary approach to decrease inaccurate labeling among hospitalized patients with documented penicillin allergy. Methods A team of clinicians, pharmacists, and nurses utilized the DMAIC quality strategy to improve accuracy of penicillin allergy labeling. Allergic reactions were stratified to develop a penicillin allergy de-labeling algorithm (Figure 1). Admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) for anaphylaxis was defined as a balancing measure. We reviewed baseline data from patients with a documented penicillin allergy admitted to a single inpatient floor at Mayo Clinic, Rochester between June and October 2019. A cause and effect diagram was used to conduct a root cause analysis. The intervention was then applied to patients who reported penicillin allergy admitted to the same floor from November 2019 to January 2020. Study data were collected and basic descriptive statistics generated. Figure 1: Penicillin allergy delabeling algorithm Results 96 patients were included in the control group with mean age of 71 years (range 65–84 years) and 55% females. Breakdown of documented allergic reactions are represented in Figure 2. 58 (60%) received an antibiotic for a median duration of 1.5 days (IQR: 0 – 6). Of these, 7(12%) received penicillin-class antibiotics, and 41 (70.6%) received non-beta-lactam antibiotics. 2 (2%) of these patients were de-labeled without any penicillin skin tests. Detailed metrics of each PDSA cycle are shown in Table 1. During PDSA cycle 2, inaccurate penicillin documentation was removed in 9/19 (47.4%) of hospitalized patients. There were no ICU admissions for anaphylaxis. Figure 2: Graphic representation of proportion of type of documented allergic reactions to penicillin Table 1: Metrics and outcomes at baseline and during successive PDSA cycles Conclusion Various factors contribute to penicillin allergy mislabeling. Our comprehensive algorithm addresses nuances of penicillin allergic reactions and increased accurate penicillin allergy labeling in 47.4% of the cases. Beta-lactam use also increased to 37% through our pilot project while maintaining patient safety. A multi-disciplinary and patient-centered approach aligned with institutional workflows is necessary to improve patient outcomes. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Objective In this study, we aimed to determine the cause of death (COD) after the diagnosis of neuroendocrine tumors (NET). Methods We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program to review patients diagnosed with NET during 2000 to 2016. Patients were followed until death, and different CODs were determined. Results Of 94,399 patients with NETs, 40.9% died during the study period. During the first year of diagnosis, most deaths were from NETs (73%), followed by other cancers (11.2%) and cardiac diseases (4.6%). After more than 10 years, NET deaths decreased to 24.3%, whereas other cancers and cardiac disease became more common. Neuroendocrine tumors were responsible for 42.8%, 63.4%, and 81.2% of deaths in grade I, grade II, and grade III, respectively. For grade I localized NET, other cancers (22.2%) were the most common COD followed by NET (19.7%), whereas in grade 2 localized NET, NET was COD in 31.1% of cases followed by other cancers (22.4%). In metastatic disease, NET was the most common COD regardless of grade. Conclusions For low-grade localized NET, deaths were mostly secondary to non-NET causes. In contrast, NET is responsible for most of deaths in metastatic NET regardless of grade.

Abstract Background Genomic biomarkers that predict response to anti-PD1 therapy in prostate cancer are needed. Frameshift mutations are predicted to generate more neoantigens than missense mutations; therefore, we hypothesized that the number or proportion of tumor frameshift mutations would correlate with response to anti-PD1 therapy in prostate cancer. Methods To enrich for response to anti-PD1 therapy, we assembled a multicenter cohort of 65 men with mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) prostate cancer. Patient characteristics and outcomes were determined by retrospective chart review. Clinical somatic DNA sequencing was used to determine tumor mutational burden (TMB), frameshift mutation burden, and frameshift mutation proportion (FSP), which were correlated to outcomes on anti-PD1 treatment. We subsequently used data from a clinical trial of pembrolizumab in patients with nonprostatic dMMR cancers of various histologies as a biomarker validation cohort. Results Nineteen of 65 patients with dMMR metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were treated with anti-PD1 therapy. The PSA50 response rate was 65%, and the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 24 (95% confidence interval 16–54) weeks. Tumor FSP, more than overall TMB, correlated most strongly with prolonged PFS and overall survival (OS) on anti-PD1 treatment and with density of CD8+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. High FSP similarly identified patients with longer PFS as well as OS on anti-PD1 therapy in a validation cohort. Conclusion Tumor FSP correlated with prolonged efficacy of anti-PD1 treatment among patients with dMMR cancers and may represent a new biomarker of immune checkpoint inhibitor sensitivity. Implications for Practice Given the modest efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) in unselected patients with advanced prostate cancer, biomarkers of ICI sensitivity are needed. To facilitate biomarker discovery, a cohort of patients with DNA mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) prostate cancer was assembled, as these patients are enriched for responses to ICI. A high response rate to anti-PD1 therapy in these patients was observed; however, these responses were not durable in most patients. Notably, tumor frameshift mutation proportion (FSP) was identified as a novel biomarker that was associated with prolonged response to anti-PD1 therapy in this cohort. This finding was validated in a separate cohort of patients with nonprostatic dMMR cancers of various primary histologies. This works suggests that FSP predicts response to anti-PD1 therapy in dMMR cancers, which should be validated prospectively in larger independent cohorts.

Abstract The primary cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) is an infection. Therefore, there is great concern about susceptibility to the outcome of COVID-19–infected patients with MM. This retrospective study describes the baseline characteristics and outcome data of COVID-19 infection in 650 patients with plasma cell disorders, collected by the International Myeloma Society to understand the initial challenges faced by myeloma patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Analyses were performed for hospitalized MM patients. Among hospitalized patients, the median age was 69 years, and nearly all patients (96%) had MM. Approximately 36% were recently diagnosed (2019-2020), and 54% of patients were receiving first-line therapy. Thirty-three percent of patients have died, with significant geographic variability, ranging from 27% to 57% of hospitalized patients. Univariate analysis identified age, International Staging System stage 3 (ISS3), high-risk disease, renal disease, suboptimal myeloma control (active or progressive disease), and 1 or more comorbidities as risk factors for higher rates of death. Neither history of transplant, including within a year of COVID-19 diagnosis, nor other anti-MM treatments were associated with outcomes. Multivariate analysis found that only age, high-risk MM, renal disease, and suboptimal MM control remained independent predictors of adverse outcome with COVID-19 infection. The management of MM in the era of COVID-19 requires careful consideration of patient- and disease-related factors to decrease the risk of acquiring COVID-19 infection, while not compromising disease control through appropriate MM treatment. This study provides initial data to develop recommendations for the management of MM patients with COVID-19 infection.

AbstractThe JAK/STAT3 signaling pathway may be aberrantly activated and have various and conflicting roles in breast cancer. The current study explored prognostic implications of activated STAT3 in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)‐positive primary breast cancers in the context of a large prospective study (ALTTO). Activated STAT3 was determined by immunohistochemical analysis of STAT3 phosphorylation (Y705) performed on the primary tumors. This analysis evaluated whether patients with activated STAT3 had disease‐free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) different from patients without activated STAT3. A total of 5694 patients out of the 8381 patients enrolled in ALTTO were included in this analysis (67.9%), and 2634 of them (46%) had evidence of STAT3 activation (minimum tumor Allred score ≥2). The median follow‐up was 6.93 years (6.85‐6.97 years), at the end of which 1035 (18.18%) and 520 (9.13%) patients experienced DFS and OS events, respectively. Patients with STAT3 activation experienced improved DFS compared to those without it (multivariable hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74‐0.95; P = .006). There were no group differences in OS (multivariable HR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.78‐1.10; P = .37). This effect was limited to ER‐positive tumors. In conclusion, these findings support the role of STAT3 activation as a marker of favorable outcome in ER‐positive/HER2‐positive breast cancer patients.

Abstract Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the major type of aggressive B-cell lymphoma. High-grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBCL) with MYC/BCL2 double-hit (DH) represents a distinct entity with dismal prognosis after standard immunochemotherapy in the current WHO lymphoma classification. However, whether TP53 mutation synergizes with MYC abnormalities (MYC rearrangement and/or Myc protein overexpression) contributing to HGBCL-like biology and prognosis is not well investigated. In this study, patients with DLBCL with MYC/TP53 abnormalities demonstrated poor clinical outcome, high-grade morphology, and distinct gene expression signatures. To identify more effective therapies for this distinctive DLBCL subset, novel MYC/TP53/BCL-2–targeted agents were investigated in DLBCL cells with MYC/TP53 dual alterations or HGBCL-MYC/BCL2-DH. A BET inhibitor INCB057643 effectively inhibited cell viability and induced apoptosis in DLBCL/HGBCL cells regardless of MYC/BCL2/TP53 status. Combining INCB057643 with a MDM2-p53 inhibitor DS3032b significantly enhanced the cytotoxic effects in HGBCL-DH without TP53 mutation, while combining with the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax displayed potent therapeutic synergy in DLBCL/HGBCL cells with and without concurrent TP53 mutation. Reverse-phase protein arrays revealed the synergistic molecular actions by INCB057643, DS3032b and venetoclax to induce cell-cycle arrest and apoptosis and to inhibit AKT/MEK/ERK/mTOR pathways, as well as potential drug resistance mechanisms mediated by upregulation of Mcl-1 and RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathways. In summary, these findings support subclassification of DLBCL/HGBCL with dual MYC/TP53 alterations, which demonstrates distinct pathobiologic features and dismal survival with standard therapy, therefore requiring additional targeted therapies. Implications: The clinical and pharmacologic studies suggest recognizing DLBCL with concomitant TP53 mutation and MYC abnormalities as a distinctive entity necessary for precision oncology practice. Visual Overview: http://mcr.aacrjournals.org/content/molcanres/19/2/249/F1.large.jpg.