Citations

10503 Background: Gender bias can be reinforced through the use of gender-subordinating language and differences in the forms of address. We examined how professional titles were used during speakers’ introductions at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting. Methods: A retrospective observational study of video-archived speaker introductions at the 2017 and 2018 ASCO annual meetings was conducted. Data were extracted by mixed-gender coders. Professional address was defined as professional title followed by full name or last name. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to identify factors associated with the form of address. Results: 2511 videos were reviewed and 812 met inclusion criteria. Regarding speakers’ characteristics, 530 (65%) were non-Hispanic white (NHW), 743 (92%) held a MD or MD-PhD degree, and 484 (60%) were an associate or full professor. Female speakers were less likely to receive a professional address compared to male speakers (61% vs. 81%, p < 0.001). Female speakers were more likely to be introduced by first name only (17% vs. 3%, p < 0.001). Males were less likely to use a professional address when introducing female speakers compared to male speakers (53% vs. 80%, p < 0.01). No gender differences in professional address were observed for female introducers (p = 0.13). Male introducers were more likely to address female speakers by first name only compared to female introducers (24% vs. 7%, p < 0.01). In a multivariable regression including gender, race, degree, and academic rank, male speakers were more likely to receive a professional address compared to female speakers (OR: 2.67, 95%CI: 1.81-3.94, p < 0.01). Black speakers of both genders were less likely to receive a professional address compared to NHW (OR: 0.10, 95%CI: 0.01-0.53, p < 0.01). Female gender was a predictor for a non-professional form of address (first name only) (OR: 9.50, 95%CI: 4.38-20.62, p < 0.01). Conclusions: When introduced by men, female speakers were less likely to receive a professional address and more likely to be introduced by first name only compared to male speakers. Selective use of forms of address may strengthen gender bias; more research is needed to explore the causes of this disparity and its influence.

7517 Background: Axi-cel, an anti-CD19 CART cell therapy, achieved 83% ORR, 58% CR rate, with 39% PFS at 2 years in patients (pts) with relapsed refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) on the ZUMA-1 study (Locke, Lancet Oncology 2018). Data from a 17-center consortium showed response rates were similar in 274 pts treated with commercial axi-cel (Nastoupil, ASH 2018). Here, we performed retrospective analysis of outcomes in pts with progressive disease (PD) after axi-cel. Methods: Response status was determined by Cheson 2014 and reported as date of radiologic relapse. 274 pts were infused by December 26, 2018 with maximum follow-up of 14 months; 116 pts had PD as of Feb 1, 2019. Twelve sites provided additional data, detailing 85% of PD pts (n=99) with a median time to relapse of 54 days (IQR 16-120). Results: Pre axi-cel pt characteristics: median lines of therapy were 4 (range 2-11), 86% were Stage III/IV and 22% were ECOG >1. Following relapse, 60% (n=61) were biopsied and 70% (43/61) had CD19 expression measured. Thirty percent (13/43) were CD19 negative by: IHC (3/13), flow (2/13) or both (8/13). Seventy percent (n=71) received salvage therapy for PD. Median lines of salvage therapy was 1 (range 0-4). The most common therapies were Lenalidomide-based (30%), checkpoint inhibitors (30%), chemotherapy (20%) and radiation (10%). First salvage therapy ORR by regimen: checkpoint inhibitors = 24%, lenalidomide regimens = 20% and chemotherapy = 11%. One patient received allogeneic transplant. Twelve pts enrolled on clinical trial, with one receiving 2nd CAR-T. Median OS following relapse was 108 days (95% LCL 71). Nineteen pts relapsed <3 months after axi-cel and did not receive therapy with median OS 17 days (95% CI 7-49); 33 pts relapsed <3 months and received therapy with 114 day median OS (95% LCL 82). In contrast, 30 pts who relapsed >3 months post axi-cel and received therapy had estimated median OS >220 days (95% LCL 81). Conclusions: Patients with LBCL relapsing less than 3 months following axi-cel have extremely poor outcomes supporting the development of novel therapies. Therapy for relapse >3 months appears promising. JYS and SD contributed equally; APR, DBM and BTH contributed equally.

AbstractBackgroundPeripheral nerve damage resulting in pain, loss of sensation, or motor function may necessitate a reconstruction with a bridging material. The RANGER® Registry was designed to evaluate outcomes following nerve repair with processed nerve allograft (Avance® Nerve Graft; Axogen; Alachua, FL). Here we report on the results from the largest peripheral nerve registry to‐date.MethodsThis multicenter IRB‐approved registry study collected data from patients repaired with processed nerve allograft (PNA). Sites followed their own standard of care for patient treatment and follow‐up. Data were assessed for meaningful recovery, defined as ≥S3/M3 to remain consistent with previously published results, and comparisons were made to reference literature.ResultsThe study included 385 subjects and 624 nerve repairs. Overall, 82% meaningful recovery (MR) was achieved across sensory, mixed, and motor nerve repairs up to gaps of 70 mm. No related adverse events were reported. There were no significant differences in MR across the nerve type, age, time‐to‐repair, and smoking status subgroups in the upper extremity (p > .05). Significant differences were noted by the mechanism of injury subgroups between complex injures (74%) as compared to lacerations (85%) or neuroma resections (94%) (p = .03) and by gap length between the <15 mm and 50–70 mm gap subgroups, 91 and 69% MR, respectively (p = .01). Results were comparable to historical literature for nerve autograft and exceed that of conduit.ConclusionsThese findings provide clinical evidence to support the continued use of PNA up to 70 mm in sensory, mixed and motor nerve repair throughout the body and across a broad patient population.

7006 Background: KTE-X19 is an autologous anti-CD19 CAR T cell therapy under investigation for adult R/R ALL. In an interim analysis of Phase 1 of ZUMA-3, we reported manageable safety and encouraging efficacy of KTE-X19; 72% of pts achieved a complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete bone marrow (BM) recovery (CRi; Wierda et al, ASH 2018. #897). Here, we present end of Phase 1 results. Methods: Adults with R/R B cell ALL, > 5% BM blasts, and ECOG 0-1 received 2, 1, or 0.5 × 106 KTE-X19 cells/kg after conditioning chemotherapy. Revised adverse event management (rAE mgmt) was implemented for additional pts in a 1 × 106 dose cohort: corticosteroids were given earlier at onset of Grade ≥ 2 neurologic events (NEs) and tocilizumab was used only for active toxicity. The primary endpoint was the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) rate. Key additional endpoints were KTE-X19 levels, incidence of AEs, minimal residual disease (MRD), and CR/CRi rate. Results: As of 9/27/18, 45 pts had received KTE-X19 (median follow-up [f/u], 16 mo). The median age was 46 y (range, 18–77); 30 pts (66%) had ≥ 3 prior therapies and the median pre-conditioning BM blasts was 70% (range, 0–97). Six, 23, and 16 pts received 2, 1, and 0.5 × 106 cells/kg, respectively. There were no DLTs in the DLT-evaluable pts. The most common Grade ≥ 3 AEs were hypotension (38%), pyrexia (38%) and thrombocytopenia (31%). There were 2 previously reported KTE-X19–related Grade 5 AEs of cerebral infarction and multiorgan failure, both in the context of CRS. Grade ≥ 3 CRS and NEs occurred in 13 (29%) and 17 (38%) pts, respectively. Of 41 pts with ≥ 2 mo of f/u, 68% had CR/CRi, and 73% had undetectable MRD. Of 19 pts with ≥ 2 mo of f/u treated with 1 × 106 cells/kg, 16 (84%) had a CR/CRi and the median event-free survival was 15 mo. In 9 pts treated with 1 × 106 cells/kg and rAE mgmt, 2 (22%) had Grade 3 CRS and 1 (11%) had Grade 3 NE with no Grade 4/5 events. Conclusions: KTE-X19 dosing and safety mgmt have been successfully refined by testing 3 cell doses and evaluating a new AE mgmt guideline with altered corticosteroids/tocilizumab use for NE/CRS. Pivotal Phase 2 is ongoing at the 1 × 106 dose with rAE mgmt. Clinical trial information: NCT02614066.

Introduction: Axicabtagene Ciloleucel (axi-cel), a CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, was approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma in October, 2017. In the ZUMA-1 trial leading to axi-cel FDA approval, patients (pts) with prior or active secondary central nervous system (CNS) lymphoma involvement were excluded. A recent publication of 8 pts with secondary CNS lymphoma who underwent Tisagenlecleucel CAR T cell therapy was reported (Frigault M.J.2019). Since the two FDA approved CAR T cell products have a different neurotoxicity profile, understanding outcomes of axi-cel in this setting is important. We report here the real-world experience of 17 pts treated with axi-cel who had a history of secondary CNS involvement or had active CNS disease at time of CAR T infusion. Methods: Seventeen academic centers from the US Lymphoma CAR T Consortium contributed data independently from the manufacturer. Data regarding secondary CNS involvement, management, and outcome were obtained in addition to CAR T therapy outcome for pts who were identified as having active, secondary CNS involvement at the time of evaluation for CAR-T therapy. Nine centers reported data on 17 cases with CNS involvement. Follow-up data was missing for one pt in the CNS cohort. Lee criteria or the modified Lee grading scale were used for cytokine release syndrome (CRS). CTCAEv4 or CARTOX grading were used for immune effector cells associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS). All leukapheresed pts were included in the intention to treat (ITT) analysis for response rate and event-free survival (EFS). EFS was defined as date of leukapheresis until progression or death due to any cause. EFS was evaluated using Kaplan Meier curves with log-rank test. Differences in clinical characteristics and response between CNS and non-CNS pts were not formally tested due to small sample size and multiple comparison concerns. Results: With a data cut-off of 4/30/2019, 300 pts underwent leukapheresis with intention to manufacture standard of care axi-cel. By the time of leukapheresis, 17 (6%) had secondary CNS involvement (4 parenchymal disease, 10 leptomeningeal/CSF, 3 data not available). Compared to the non-CNS cohort, baseline demographics were comparable (Panel A). Manufactured axi-cel was within specification for 100% of the CNS cohort. There was a higher rate of bridging therapy use in the CNS cohort 82% (1 steroids only, 2 radiation therapy, 12 systemic therapy) vs 52% in non-CNS cohort; p=0.022. Time from leukapheresis to CAR T infusion was 3.5 days longer in the CNS cohort as opposed to the non-CNS cohort: median time of 29.5 (range 20-76) vs. 26 days (range 5-67), (p=0.029), respectively. The CAR T infusion rate was 88% for the CNS cohort (15/17) compared to 93% (262/283) in the non-CNS cohort. Among the 15 infused pts in the CNS cohort, 10 had resolution of CNS involvement, and 5 had persistent active CNS disease at time of CAR T infusion. After axi-cel infusion, the incidence of CRS and ICANS, of any grade or grade 3 or higher, were comparable between the CNS and non-CNS cohorts. Tocilizumab and steroid use were comparable between the two groups (Panel B). No seizures or cerebral edema were noted in the CNS cohort. With a median follow-up of 10.1 months from leukapheresis (range 7.6-12.6), the ITT best overall response rates (CR+PR) and ongoing responses at month 6 between CNS and non-CNS cohorts were 75% vs. 59%, and 41% vs. 31%, respectively (Panel B). In the 5 pts with active CNS disease at time of CAR T infusion, the response of CNS disease were 2 CR, 1 PR and 2 PD as best response. In the 10 pts with resolved CNS disease at time of CAR T infusion, 2 PD were seen and both occurred systemically. EFS from leukapheresis was not statistically significantly different between CNS and non-CNS cohorts (6 months EFS: CNS cohort, 36%; non-CNS cohort 57%. HR=1.58, 95% CI: 0.83-3.01, p=0.16, Panel C). Six month EFS from the date of infusion for the CNS cohort was 49.9% (Panel D). Conclusions: Pts attempting CAR T therapy with secondary CNS disease in the real world setting had similar rates of CAR T infusion, toxicity, and outcomes when compared to patients without CNS disease. Small sample size and limited follow-up caution the strength of conclusions for application to clinical practice, but these results support further investigation of CAR T in pts with history of or active secondary CNS lymphoma. Figure Disclosures Bennani: Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board. Maurer:Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Nastoupil:Bayer: Honoraria; Spectrum: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jain:Kite/Gilead: Consultancy. Chavez:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: 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; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cashen:Seattle Genetics: Other: Speaker's Bureau; Novartis: Other: Speaker's Bureau; Celgene: Other: Speaker's Bureau. 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; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: 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. Deol:Novartis: Other: Advisory board; Kite: Other: Advisory board; Agios: Other: Advisory board. Sehgal:Juno/Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding. Goy:COTA: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: leadership role for profit healthcare company; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astrazenca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; University of Nebraska: Research Funding; Hakensackumc: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Grants outside of the submitted work; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work; 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; Hackensack University Medical Center, RCCA: Employment; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding. Hill:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Vu:Celgene: Other: Stock. Andreadis:Genentech: Equity Ownership, Other: Spouse is Employee; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Munoz:Incyte: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Fosunkite: Speakers Bureau; Kyowa: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. 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:Miltenyi Biotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Becton Dickinson: Research Funding; 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; Celgene: 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; Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; 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. Locke:Kite: Other: Scientific Advisor; Novartis: Other: Scientific Advisor; Cellular BioMedicine Group Inc.: Consultancy. Neelapu:Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Poseida: Research Funding; Allogene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy. Lin:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno: 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; BlueBird Bio: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sorrento: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

MDJ and MTJ contributed equally; FLL and AG contributed equally. Introduction Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) are autologous anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapies approved for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) who have failed at least two lines of systemic therapy. In the ZUMA-1 trial that led to axi-cel approval, the median time between apheresis and delivery of CAR T cells to the treating facility was 17 days (Neelapu, Locke et al. NEJM 2018). Bridging therapy, defined as lymphoma therapy given between apheresis and the start of lymphodepleting chemotherapy, was not permitted on ZUMA-1. By contrast, the pivotal JULIET trial for tisa-cel (Schuster et al. NEJM 2019) had a median time from enrollment to infusion of 54 days and 92% of patients received bridging therapy. Whether bridging therapy affects lymphoma CAR T outcomes is unknown. Here we evaluate patients receiving bridging therapy for axi-cel in a large multicenter cohort. Methods and Results The US Lymphoma CAR T Consortium includes seventeen US academic centers that contribute data from lymphoma patients treated with standard of care (SOC) CAR T-cell therapy independently of manufacturers. As of 8/31/2018, 300 patients were apheresed with intent to manufacture SOC axi-cel for LBCL. Of the 23 patients that underwent apheresis for axi-cel and did not receive it, 20 had lymphoma progression or death that precluded CAR T infusion, of which 16 received bridging therapy. In this study, we analyze 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, 146 (53%) patients received bridging therapy while 130 (47%) patients received no bridging therapy. Bridging therapy consisted of steroids alone (n = 35, 24%), chemotherapy (n = 73, 50%), radiation (n = 24, 16%), or targeted therapies (n = 14, 10%). At baseline, a higher proportion of patients in the bridging therapy group had an ECOG score of 2 - 4 vs. 0 - 1 (bridging 24.8%, no bridging 6.1%, p &lt;0.001), IPI score of 3 -5 vs. 0 - 2 (bridging 67.6%, no bridging 34.3%, p &lt;0.001), bulky disease greater than 10 cm (28.2% vs. 13.0%, p = 0.002), immunohistochemical double expression of MYC and BCL2 (42.5% vs. 24.6%, p =0.004) and would not have met all the eligibility criteria for ZUMA-1 for reasons other than bridging therapy (48.6% vs. 30.0%, p = 0.002). After axi-cel infusion, patients in the bridging group had similar rates of severe (grade 3 or higher) cytokine release syndrome (CRS) (8.2% vs. 5.3%, p = 0.34) and ICANS (35.2% vs. 28.2%, p = 0.25). However, the rate of ICU admission was higher in the bridging group (41.4% vs. 22.9%, p = 0.001) as was median length of hospital stay (15 vs. 14 days, p = 0.02). While data on cytopenias was not collected, use of G-CSF after CAR T therapy was higher in the bridging group (48.2% vs. 32.1%, p = 0.006). In terms of outcomes, in multivariate analysis correcting for confounding features, there was no statistically significant difference in overall response rate (p = 0.2), complete response rate (p = 0.19), and progression free survival (p = 0.3) between bridging and no bridging groups; but bridging therapy was associated with significantly poorer overall survival (p = 0.001) and lymphoma specific survival (p = 0.019) (figure 1.). Both death due to lymphoma (33.1% vs. 13.0%) and death due to treatment-related mortality (TRM) (6.9% vs. 1.5%) were higher in the bridging group (p &lt;0.001). Conclusions Lymphoma patients receiving bridging therapy had poorer prognostic factors at baseline and after axi-cel infusion experienced decreased lymphoma-specific and overall survival compared with patients with no bridging. This inferior outcome raises the possibility that bridging therapy may identify a sub-group of lymphoma patients with a different biology, or alternatively, bridging therapy may have an effect on the host or the tumor microenvironment that may impact CAR-T efficacy. With or without bridging, 7% of patients in our series did not receive axi-cel due to lymphoma progression and/or death. In addition, there may have been patients where bridging prevented progression or death prior to axi-cel infusion. Prospective evaluation of different bridging strategies is warranted to determine if any can improve outcomes after axi-cel, and/or if they should be utilized only for patients requiring emergent disease control during the manufacture period. Disclosures Jain: Kite/Gilead: Consultancy. Nastoupil:Bayer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria. Lin:Janssen: 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, Research Funding; BlueBird Bio: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sorrento: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lunning:Curis: Research Funding; Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; MiRagen: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; DAVA: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; OncLive: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; 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:Juno Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: 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. Deol:Novartis: Other: Advisory board; Kite: Other: Advisory board; Agios: Other: Advisory board. Goy:University of Nebraska: Research Funding; Hakensackumc: 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; Hackensack University Medical Center, RCCA: Employment; Genentech: Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; 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. Hill:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Munoz: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; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Fosunkite: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Portola: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics /Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy. Chavez:Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: 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; Genentech: Speakers Bureau. 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: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; 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; 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; Miltenyi Biotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Becton Dickinson: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Neelapu:Cellectis: Research Funding; Allogene: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Karus: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy. Bennani:Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board. Andreadis:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Roche: Equity Ownership; Celgene: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Employment; Merck: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy. Sehgal:Juno/Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding. Locke:Novartis: Other: Scientific Advisor; Kite: Other: Scientific Advisor; Cellular BioMedicine Group Inc.: Consultancy.

Abstract AbstractThe T2-FLAIR (fluid attenuated inversion recovery) mismatch sign is an easily detectable imaging sign on routine clinical MRI studies that suggests diagnosis of isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)–mutant 1p/19q non-codeleted gliomas. Multiple independent studies show that the T2-FLAIR mismatch sign has near-perfect specificity, but low sensitivity for diagnosing IDH-mutant astrocytomas. Thus, the T2-FLAIR mismatch sign represents a non-invasive radiogenomic diagnostic finding with potential clinical impact. Recently, false positive cases have been reported, many related to variable application of the sign’s imaging criteria and differences in image acquisition, as well as to differences in the included patient populations. Here we summarize the imaging criteria for the T2-FLAIR mismatch sign, review similarities and differences between the multiple validation studies, outline strategies to optimize its clinical use, and discuss potential opportunities to refine imaging criteria in order to maximize its impact in glioma diagnostics.

Abstract Background Breast cancer treatment is based on estrogen receptors (ERs), progesterone receptors (PRs), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). At the time of metastasis, receptor status can be discordant from that at initial diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of discordance and its effect on survival and subsequent treatment in patients with breast cancer brain metastases (BCBM). Methods A retrospective database of 316 patients who underwent craniotomy for BCBM between 2006 and 2017 was created. Discordance was considered present if the ER, PR, or HER2 status differed between the primary tumor and the BCBM. Results The overall receptor discordance rate was 132/316 (42%), and the subtype discordance rate was 100/316 (32%). Hormone receptors (HR, either ER or PR) were gained in 40/160 (25%) patients with HR-negative primary tumors. HER2 was gained in 22/173 (13%) patients with HER2-negative primary tumors. Subsequent treatment was not adjusted for most patients who gained receptors—nonetheless, median survival (MS) improved but did not reach statistical significance (HR, 17–28 mo, P = 0.12; HER2, 15–19 mo, P = 0.39). MS for patients who lost receptors was worse (HR, 27–18 mo, P = 0.02; HER2, 30–18 mo, P = 0.08). Conclusions Receptor discordance between primary tumor and BCBM is common, adversely affects survival if receptors are lost, and represents a missed opportunity for use of effective treatments if receptors are gained. Receptor analysis of BCBM is indicated when clinically appropriate. Treatment should be adjusted accordingly. Key Points 1. Receptor discordance alters subtype in 32% of BCBM patients. 2. The frequency of receptor gain for HR and HER2 was 25% and 13%, respectively. 3. If receptors are lost, survival suffers. If receptors are gained, consider targeted treatment.

AbstractObjectiveTo conduct a systematic literature review of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) for pain.DesignGrade the evidence for PNS.MethodsAn international interdisciplinary work group conducted a literature search for PNS. Abstracts were reviewed to select studies for grading. Inclusion/exclusion criteria included prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with meaningful clinical outcomes that were not part of a larger or previously reported group. Excluded studies were retrospective, had less than two months of follow-up, or existed only as abstracts. Full studies were graded by two independent reviewers using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques–Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria.ResultsPeripheral nerve stimulation was studied in 14 RCTs for a variety of painful conditions (headache, shoulder, pelvic, back, extremity, and trunk pain). Moderate to strong evidence supported the use of PNS to treat pain.ConclusionPeripheral nerve stimulation has moderate/strong evidence. Additional prospective trials could further refine appropriate populations and pain diagnoses.

The advent of novel immunotherapies, such as blinatumomab, inotuzumab, and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy, has revolutionized the therapeutic landscape in the treatment of relapsed/refractory B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia, but can be associated with specific toxicities. We review unique toxicities of each of these in this article. Blinatumomab, a bispecific T cell engager, has been associated with cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurological toxicities, both of which can be prevented and managed with corticosteroids. Inotuzumab is a calicheamicin-conjugated CD22 targeting antibody. The calicheamicin component of the drug is likely associated with the hepatotoxicity seen with inotuzumab, especially sinusoidal obstruction syndrome, which can happen both in the context of the drug alone, and also with allogeneic stem cell transplantation. QT prolongation has also been noted with inotuzumab. CAR T therapy uses genetically modified autologous T cells directed against CD19, a known target on B cells. CRS and neurological symptoms, formally termed as immune-effector-cell-associated neurological syndrome, have been described along with hypogammaglobulinemia, cytopenias, and infections.