Citations

AbstractA 36‐year‐old man was treated for several years with multiple agents for ankylosing spondylitis based on positive human leukocyte antigen‐B27 and sacroiliitis. He was also diagnosed with osteoporosis and hypophosphatemia. Over these years, from being an avid runner, he became dependent on a walker for ambulation. The lack of treatment response and the low phosphorus were clues that eventually led to a diagnosis of tumor‐induced osteomalacia. This case discusses the importance of not solely relying on genetic markers and sacroiliitis for diagnosing ankylosing spondylitis as other conditions can cause similar presentations.

Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN), a subset of gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD), occurs when tumors develop in the cells that would normally form the placenta during pregnancy. The NCCN Guidelines for Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia provides treatment recommendations for various types of GTD including hydatidiform mole, persistent post-molar GTN, low-risk GTN, high-risk GTN, and intermediate trophoblastic tumor.

Mammographic breast density (MD) reflects breast fibroglandular content. Its decline following adjuvant tamoxifen treated, estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer has been associated with improved outcomes. Breast cancers arise from structures termed lobules, and lower MD is associated with increased age-related lobule involution. We assessed whether pre-treatment involution influenced associations between MD decline and risk of breast cancer-specific death. ER-positive tamoxifen treated patients diagnosed at Kaiser Permanente Northwest (1990–2008) were defined as cases who died of breast cancer (n = 54) and matched controls (remained alive over similar follow-up; n = 180). Lobule involution was assessed by examining terminal duct lobular units (TDLUs) in benign tissues surrounding cancers as TDLU count/mm2, median span and acini count/TDLU. MD (%) was measured in the unaffected breast at baseline (median 6-months before) and follow-up (median 12-months after tamoxifen initiation). TDLU measures and baseline MD were positively associated among controls (p < 0.05). In multivariable regression models, MD decline (≥10%) was associated with reduced risk of breast cancer-specific death before (odds ratio (OR): 0.41, 95% CI: 0.18–0.92) and after (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.18–0.94) adjustment for TDLU count/mm2, TDLU span (OR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.14–0.84), and acini count/TDLU (OR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.13–0.81). MD decline following adjuvant tamoxifen is associated with reduced risk of breast cancer-specific death, irrespective of pre-treatment lobule involution.

Changes in pituitary-ovarian hormones across the menopausal transition have multiple physiological consequences. However, little is known about how the major types of postmenopausal hormone therapy (HT) affect pituitary-ovarian hormonal relationships. This study evaluated these relationships in recently menopausal women (52.45 ± 2.49 yr of age) in the Kronos Early Estrogen Prevention Study (KEEPS) who were compliant to randomized, double-blinded treatment with oral conjugated equine estrogen (o-CEE; n = 109), transdermal 17β-estradiol (t-E2; n = 107), or placebo ( n = 146). Androstenedione, testosterone, 17β-estradiol, estrone, follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), and luteinizing hormone (LH) were measured in serum before (baseline) and 48 mo after randomization to treatment. Descriptive summaries of hormone levels were performed, and multiple regression analyses were used to examine the effects of o-CEE, t-E2, and placebo on these hormone levels at 48 mo, adjusting for baseline levels. A network analysis examined the covariance of changes in hormone levels over the 48 mo within treatment groups. As expected, at 48 mo of treatment, hormone levels differed between women in the two active treatment groups compared with placebo, and network analysis indicated stronger relationships among hormone levels in the t-E2 and o-CEE groups compared with placebo. Associations among testosterone, 17β-estradiol, FSH, and LH differed between the o-CEE group compared with t-E2 and placebo groups. Thus, two common HT regimens differentially alter pituitary-ovarian hormone levels, altering feedback cycles and interhormonal associations in recently menopausal women. These interactions provide the basis for future studies investigating the impact of hormonal modulation of aging, including cognitive decline in women.

Abstract Introduction Axi-cel is an autologous anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy approved by the US FDA 10/18/2017, for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory (r/r) large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL), transformed lymphoma (tFL), and high-grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBCL) who have failed at least two prior systemic lines of therapy. In the pivotal ZUMA-1 trial, 108 patients (pts) with r/r DLBCL were treated with axi-cel: the best overall response rate (ORR) was 82% and complete response (CR) rate was 58%. At a median follow-up of 15.4 months, 42% of the pts had ongoing remission (Neelapu and Locke et al. NEJM 2017). Grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome (CRS) by Lee criteria and neurologic events (NEs) occurred in 13% and 31% of the pts, respectively. Here, we evaluated the real world outcomes of pts treated with standard of care axi-cel under the commercial FDA label. Methods and Results Seventeen US academic centers contributed data to this effort independently of the manufacturer. As of 6/30/2018, 211 pts were leukapheresed with intention to manufacture commercial axi-cel. Of these, 165 (78%) pts completed axi-cel infusion as of 6/30/18 and a further 23 (11%) pts are scheduled for axi-cel infusion in July 2018. Of the 23 remaining pts, 7 (3%) received axi-cel therapy on ZUMA-9 expanded access trial (NCT03153462) due to non-conforming cell therapy product, 15 (7%) pts died before axi-cel infusion (14 from lymphoma progression and 1 from sepsis) and 1 (1%) patient attained CR from bridging therapy and was not infused. Safety was evaluable in 163 pts receiving axi-cel. Grade ³3 CRS and NEs occurred in 7% and 31% of pts. Tocilizumab was administered in 62% of pts and 57% received corticosteroids. Outside of lymphoma progression, 3 deaths occurred post-axi-cel; 1 due to HLH, 1 due to systemic candidiasis, and a third due to septic shock. There were no grade 5 NEs observed. Response assessment was done for pts infused with axi-cel and who were re-staged at day 30 and/or day 100, or were deemed to have clinical progression. Of 112 pts evaluable at day 30, ORR was 79% with 50% CR, 29% PR, 6% SD and 14% with PD. Of 39 pts evaluable at day 100, 59% of pts had ongoing response (CR 49%, PR 10%). At the time of abstract submission, more detailed patient characteristics and treatment course data were available in 134/165 pts infused. Median age was 59 (range 21-82) with 57% male. Performance status (PS) was ECOG 0-1 (81%), ECOG 2 (16%) and ECOG 3 (3%). By histology, 61% of pts had DLBCL including HGBCL, 31% had tFL and 8% PMBCL. Thirty-one percent had a prior autologous stem cell transplant. Bridging therapy between apheresis and infusion was given in 56% of patients, the majority of which consisted of chemotherapy. Sixty-six of 134 (49%) would not have met eligibility criteria for ZUMA-1 at the time of leukapheresis. Common criteria that would have made these patients ineligible for ZUMA-1 included ECOG PS >1 (n = 22), platelets <75k (n = 17), GFR <60 (n =12), active DVT/PE (n = 13), liver enzyme abnormalities (n = 10), a history of CNS lymphoma (n = 8), recent checkpoint inhibitor therapy (n = 7), ejection fraction <50% (n = 4), prior CD19 CAR T therapy (n = 4), and prior allogeneic transplant (n=2). Median time from leukapheresis to start of conditioning chemotherapy was 21 days and median time from leukapheresis to axi-cel infusion was 26 days. Median hospitalization period was 14 days. Conclusions This multicenter retrospective study delineates the real world outcomes of axi-cel CAR T-cell therapy for r/r aggressive B-cell lymphoma when used as a standard of care. Though limited by relatively short follow up, 30 day responses in the real world setting are comparable to the best responses observed on the pivotal ZUMA-1 clinical trial (Table 1). Importantly, safety appears comparable to the ZUMA-1 trial despite nearly half the pts failing to meet ZUMA-1 eligibility criteria. Updated results including PFS and OS will be presented at the meeting. L.J.N. and M.D.J. contributed equally; D.B.M., S.S.N. and F.L.L. contributed equally. Disclosures Nastoupil: Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therappeutics: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Juno: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Spectrum: Honoraria. Lunning:Celgene: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Genzyme: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy. Reagan:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. McGuirk:Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Honoraria, Other: speaker, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: travel accommodations, expenses, speaker ; Pluristem Ltd: Research Funding. Deol:Novartis: Consultancy; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Hill:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Andreadis:Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Employment; Astellas: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Juno: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Munoz:Pfizer: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Consultancy; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Westin:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Apotex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vose:Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Legend Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria; Epizyme: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Incyte Corp.: Research Funding. Miklos:Genentech: Research Funding; Kite - Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics - Abbot: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding. Locke:Kite Pharma: Other: Scientific Advisor; Cellular BioMedicine Group Inc.: Consultancy; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Scientific Advisor.

Abstract Introduction: Mutations localized in the tyrosine kinase domain activation loop of FLT3 (FLT3-TKD), representing point mutations in codon D835/I836 and rarely deletions of codon I836, induce constitutive tyrosine phosphorylation and activation of the receptor tyrosine kinase similarly to FLT3 internal tandem duplication (ITD) mutations. However, the prognostic role of FLT3-TKD in AML, particularly in the presence of NPM1 mutations, is not well established. The phase 3 RATIFY trial [NCT00651261; Stone et al. N Engl J Med. 2017] showed that in combination with standard chemotherapy, midostaurin (PKC412) improved survival outcomes across all 3 FLT3 stratification subgroups (ITD high allelic ratio [≥ 0.7], ITD low allelic ratio [< 0.7], and TKD) vs placebo in patients with newly diagnosed FLT3-mutated AML. Here, we evaluated the prognostic impact of FLT3-TKD and NPM1 mutations in a post hoc analysis from the RATIFY trial. Methods: In RATIFY, newly diagnosed patients with AML 18-60 years old were randomly assigned to receive midostaurin or placebo together with standard induction and consolidation therapy followed by 12 28-day cycles of maintenance therapy with midostaurin or placebo. FLT3-TKD mutation was detected by PCR and capillary electrophoresis at 9 reference laboratories. Patients were categorized as NPM1 mutated (mut) or NPM1 wild-type (WT) using PCR. Efficacy outcomes included complete remission (CR), overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS) and disease-free survival (DFS). EFS and DFS analyses were performed considering CR within a 60-day window. P values presented have not been adjusted for multiplicity. Results: Of the total randomized 162 FLT3-TKD patients, 134 with available NPM1 data had consented for exploratory analysis and thus were included in this study (see Table for subgroup distribution). Overall, 47.8% of patients were male, and the median age was 49 years (95% CI, 45.5-51.1 years). The median white blood cell (WBC) count was higher in patients with NPM1-mut than in patients with NPM1-WT (34.1 vs 15.5 × 109/L, P = .0011). CR rates (during the first 60 days) were higher in patients with FLT3-TKD/NPM1-mut vs FLT3-TKD/NPM1-WT (66% vs 53%); however, this was driven by the higher rate of CR in the midostaurin arm (76% NPM1-mut vs 44% NPM1-WT) rather than the placebo arm (53% NPM1-mut vs 60% NPM1-WT). The overall CR rate (regardless of NPM1 genotype) was 64% for midostaurin and 56% for placebo in FLT3-TKD patients. The prognostic effect of the NPM1 mutation concurrent with FLT3-TKD was seen for all endpoints consistently with hazard ratios (HRs) around 0.50 or lower (Figures 1 and 2 and Table). Overall (regardless of treatment) OS, EFS, and DFS estimates at 3 years were 73% vs 52%, 48% vs 25%, and 74% vs 47%, respectively, in patients with FLT3-TKD/NPM1-mut vs FLT3-TKD/NPM1-WT. Whereas the HRs for midostaurin vs placebo were 0.73 for both OS and EFS, the impact of treatment on outcomes varied between the individual NPM1/TKD subgroups and was not consistently observed when endpoints were censored at stem cell transplant (SCT) (Table). It should be noted that the number of patients in each subgroup was small and therefore the HRs with 95% CIs should be interpreted with caution. Multivariate analyses in these FLT3-TKD patients revealed that NPM1 genotype was an independent prognostic factor for OS, EFS and DFS (2-sided P < .05), whereas study drug, age, sex, WBC at baseline and SCT (no/yes) did not reach this level of significance in the Cox model. Conclusions: This post hoc analysis of the FLT3-TKD patient subset in the RATIFY trial showed the high prognostic value of NPM1 mutational status. Whereas midostaurin showed an overall benefit in the FLT3-TKD patients for OS, EFS, CR and DFS, the impact of treatment on outcome varied between the individual NPM1 subgroups within these FLT3-TKD patients and was not consistently observed.Further analyses using additional endpoints and additional multivariate analyses are planned. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U10CA180820, U10CA180791, U10CA180888, U10CA180863, (CCSRI) #704970, U24CA196171; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00651261 Disclosures Voso: Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Larson:Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BristolMyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Heuser:Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; StemLine Therapeutics: Consultancy; Astellas: Research Funding; BergenBio: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Bayer Pharma AG: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tetralogic: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding. Wei:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding. Brandwein:Lundbeck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding. de Witte:Novartis: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Medeiros:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Employment. Tallman:Cellerant: Research Funding; Orsenix: Other: Advisory board; BioSight: Other: Advisory board; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; AROG: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Other: Advisory board. Schlenk:Pfizer: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ganser:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cheng:Novartis: Employment. Gathmann:Novartis: Employment. Tiecke:Novartis: Employment. Thiede:AgenDix: Other: Ownership; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Döhner:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celator: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; AROG Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; AROG Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celator: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Stone:Otsuka: Consultancy; Argenx: Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Amgen: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Orsenix: Consultancy; Ono: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Cornerstone: Consultancy; Fujifilm: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board, Steering Committee; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sumitomo: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Axi-cel is a US FDA-approved, autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory large B cell lymphoma with ≥ 2 prior systemic therapies. This report focuses on high-risk patient populations as well as long-term durability of response, and B cell recovery. Methods: In ZUMA-1, eligible patients with refractory large B cell lymphoma (diffuse large B cell lymphoma, primary mediastinal B cell lymphoma, transformed follicular lymphoma) underwent leukapheresis and received low-dose conditioning followed by a target dose of 2 × 106 anti-CD19 CAR T cells/kg (Neelapu and Locke et al. NEJM. 2017; NCT02348216). Outcomes in patients with double-expressor B cell lymphoma (MYC [≥ 40%] and BCL-2 [≥ 50%] protein expression by immunohistochemistry [IHC]) or high-grade B cell lymphoma (HGBCL), defined as double- or triple-hit (MYC+ and BCL2+ and/or BCL6+ by fluorescence in situ hybridization) or not otherwise specified (MYC- and > 70% Ki67 by IHC) were examined by independent pathology review. Exploratory analyses, including normal B cell levels in peripheral blood over time and frequency of use of safety interventions of interest, were also performed. A long-term follow-up analysis will be conducted with a data cutoff of August 11, 2018 for all 108 patients, including the HGBCL subgroup. Results: As of August 11, 2017, all 108 patients had at least 1 year of follow-up, with a median follow-up of 15.4 months. The objective response rate (ORR) was 82% with a complete response (CR) rate or 58%. The CR rate was 53% (29/55) in patients with disease refractory to ≥ 2 consecutive prior lines of therapy and 72% (18/25) in patients who had relapsed within 12 months after autologous stem cell transplantation. High-risk genetics were assessed in the 47 evaluable pre-treatment tumor samples: 37 patients (79%) had HGBCL or double-expressor B cell lymphoma and had an ORR of 89% (33/37) including a CR rate of 68% (25/37). Forty-two percent of patients overall had ongoing responses with a median follow-up of 15.4 months including 49% (18/37) of patients with high-risk genetics. To investigate the relationship between B cell recovery and ongoing response, B cell levels were assessed over time. Overall, of the 87 evaluable patients, 47% had no detectable B cells at baseline, and the remainder had levels close to or below the lower level of quantification of the assay. In patients with ongoing responses at 12 months post axi-cel infusion, 19 of the 35 (54%) patients with evaluable samples had detectable B cells at 12 months. This suggests B cell recovery in some patients with ongoing response as only 6 of 40 (15%) patients with evaluable samples had detectable B cells at 3 months after axi-cel infusion. Grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic events (NE) were generally reversible and reported for 12% and 31% of patients, respectively. Tocilizumab (45%) and/or steroids (28%) were used for the management of CRS and NE. The use of vasopressors, dialysis, and intubation were minimal, used in only 17%, 3%, and 3% of patients, respectively. Thirty-four percent of patients (37/108) had either no CRS/NE (6%) or only Grade 1 CRS with (12%) or without (16%) Grade 1 NE. For these 37 patients, the median onset of CRS and NE was 2 and 7 days after infusion, respectively. Patients with Grade 0 - 1 CRS/NE had similar efficacy (ORR, 86%; CR, 65%) but lower peak/AUC CAR T cell levels vs the overall population. Updated safety and efficacy results will be presented with a minimum follow-up of 2 years and a median follow-up of 27.1 months. Conclusion: High rates of durable response were observed in patients with HGBCL and double-expressor B cell lymphoma, with approximately half of these patients (18/37) maintaining CR at ≥ 1 year. Efficacy in these high-risk populations was comparable to the overall patient population in ZUMA-1. At 12 months, B-cell recovery was observed in over half the patients with ongoing remission. About one-third of patients had only Grades 0 - 1 CRS/NE yet showed comparable efficacy with the overall patient population. High-grade CRS/NE were largely managed with tocilizumab and steroids with very low use of intensive or invasive interventions. Updated outcomes with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up will be presented. Disclosures Neelapu: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Unum Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Miklos:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics - Abbot: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite - Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hill:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Deol:Novartis: Consultancy; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Reagan:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Flinn:Agios: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. McSweeney:Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Munoz:Alexion: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Siddiqi:Juno Therapeutics: Other: Steering committee. Herrera:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Merck, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; KiTE Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding. Xue:Kite, a Gilead Company: Employment. Jiang:Kite, a Gilead Company: Employment. Bot:KITE: Employment. Rossi:KITE: Employment. Kim:Kite, a Gilead Company: Employment. Go:KITE: Employment. Locke:Cellular BioMedicine Group Inc.: Consultancy; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Scientific Advisor; Kite Pharma: Other: Scientific Advisor.

Abstract Background: New targeted therapies continue to show improved efficacy in various stages of chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL), sparing patients from chemoimmunotherapy. However, cure remains elusive. Here, we present a front-line alternative based on a combination of high-dose methylprednisolone (HDMP) and ofatumumab, followed by consolidative therapy with lenalidomide plus ofatumumab. Methods: This is a phase II, single-center study in patients with treatment-naive (TN) CLL/SLL. During the first treatment phase (cycles 1-3) patients received HDMP 1000 mg/m2 IV and ofatumumab 2000 mg (300 mg given week 1 then 2000 mg for a total of 12 doses) IV infusions weekly x 4 doses in cycle 1 of a 28 day cycle, then every 2 weeks for cycles 2 and 3. During the second treatment phase (cycles 4-12), patients received renally adjusted lenalidomide 5-10 mg daily and ofatumumab 2000mg IV once every 8 weeks. Growth factor support was permitted at the discretion of treating physician. Prophylactic medications included allopurinol for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) 3 days before C1D1 through C1; and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and fluconazole through cycle 4, and acyclovir through C12. Patients received aspirin 81 mg/day as thrombosis prophylaxis while on lenalidomide. Patients were assessed for response by iwCLL 2008 criteria (including imaging assessment) after completion of cycles 3 and 12. The study allowed continuation of lenalidomide if patients achieved complete (CR), partial (PR) response or stable disease (SD). Primary endpoints were efficacy, adverse events (AEs) profile, and time-to-treatment failure (TTF). Results: Between January 2012 and September 2015, the study enrolled a total of 45 patients. Median follow-up was 50.4 (5.6-72.8) months. The median age was 62.6 (48.2-86.1) years. Chromosomal analysis by FISH demonstrated Del17p in 8 (17.8%), Del11q (+/- others, except Del17p) in 10 (22.2%), Trisomy 12 (+/- others, except Del17p and Del11q) in 8 (17.8%), Del13q in 10 (22.2%), no mutations in 9 (20%) patients. The IGHV status was unmutated in 34 (75.6%) cases. Indications to start treatment were: symptomatic lymphadenopathy, symptomatic splenomegaly, anemia, and thrombocytopenia in 5 (11.1%), 10 (22.2%), 12 (26.7%), and 18 (40%), respectively. The median duration of treatment was 35.6 (2.7-66.9) months. Reasons for treatment discontinuation were: progressive disease (PD) in 9 (20%), AEs in 15 (33.3%), transplantation in 3 (6.7%), consent withdrawal in 1 (2.2%), and secondary malignancies in 2 (4.4%) cases. The overall response rates (PR+CR) at 3, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months were 75.6%, 77.8%, 66.7%, 44.4%, and 37.8%, respectively. The CR rates at 3, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months were 2.2%, 11.1%, 20%, 17.8%, and 13.3% respectively. Fifteen patients remain in PR/CR and on treatment at the time of this analysis. The intention-to-treat median TTF was 45.2 (2.9-69.7) months, and was not different among high risk groups such as Del17p, Del11q and/or unmutated IgHV. In patients who discontinued for reasons other than PD the median duration of response without treatment was 30.7 (9.8-69.7) months. Three (6.7%) patients underwent allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation after a median of 3 (3 - 4) treatment cycles. Treatment was well tolerated with grade 3/4 infusion reaction in 1 (2.2%) patient. Grade 3/4 treatment-related hematological AEs were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia in 33 (73.3%), 5 (11.1%), and 1 (2.2%), respectively. Grade 3/4 infections occurred in 6 (13.3%) patients. No grade 3/4 tumor flares were observed, and there were no cases of TLS or thrombosis. Conclusion: The combination of ofatumumab, HDMP and lenalidomide is effective and well tolerated in treatment-naive CLL/SLL, even when poor prognostic features are present. Disclosures Komrokji: Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Locke:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Scientific Advisor; Cellular BioMedicine Group Inc.: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Other: Scientific Advisor. Kharfan-Dabaja:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Incyte Corp: Speakers Bureau; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau. Sokol:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Overall survival (OS) remains the definitive primary efficacy endpoint to evaluate previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) therapies, but it requires prolonged follow-up. An earlier endpoint assessed post-treatment would expedite clinical trial conduct and accelerate patient access to effective new therapies. Our objective was to formally evaluate event-free survival (EFS) as a surrogate endpoint for OS in untreated AML. Methods: Individual patient data were analyzed from 2,475 patients (pts) from 4 multicenter, randomized controlled phase III trials of active treatment in previously untreated AML using anthracycline and cytarabine induction chemotherapy as the concurrent control (CALGB 10201, n=506, enrollment period 2003-2006, age 60-88 years (y); CALGB 10603, n=717, enrollment period 2008-2015, age 18-60 y, FLT3-mutated pts only; SWOG 0106, n=595, enrollment period 2004-2009, age 18-60 y; ECOG-ACRIN 1900, n=657, enrollment period 2002-2008, age 17-60 y). Individual patient-level surrogacy examines the association between the individual patients' EFS and OS time after adjusting for treatment effect, and was assessed using the copula bivariate survival model (Kendall's tau). Trial-level surrogacy measures how precisely the treatment effect on OS can be predicted on the basis of observed treatment effect on EFS, and was evaluated using both linear regression (R2WLS) weighted by trial size and Copula bivariate (R2Copula) models. Pre-specified criteria for surrogacy required either R2WLS or R2Copula ≥0.80, neither below 0.7, with either lower bound 95% Confidence Interval (CI) >0.60. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using different EFS definitions (Table 1). Results: With a median follow-up of 50.2 months for the 896 patients still alive, the median OS and EFS across all four trials were 20.9 months (95% CI: 19.0-22.7) and 5.6 months (95% CI: 4.5-6.4), respectively. Trial-level surrogacy for EFS was strong (R2WLS=0.79; R2Copula=0.89), indicating a high correlation of treatment effect between EFS and OS. At the individual patient-level, however, EFS showed weak association with OS (tau= 0.52), compared to the strength of trial-level surrogacy. The discrepancy between patient-level EFS and OS was greatest among patients who did not achieve a CR, followed by those who achieved a CR but relapsed (Figure 1). Sensitivity analysis on alternative EFS definitions showed that the trial-level surrogacy was similar, but individual patient-level surrogacy varied across different EFS definitions (Table 1). This is consistent with what we previously reported (ASH 2016): EFS estimates differed considerably based on the definition of induction failure (IF) in a single arm setting, but this had minimal impact on the estimation of the treatment effect using EFS in randomized trials. In addition, when considering only relapse and death as events (definition 4), both individual patient- and trial-level correlations were high. Conclusions: Correlation between EFS and OS was impacted by patients not achieving CR during induction. Despite the lack of patient-level correlation, a strong correlation between hazard ratios for treatment effects was observed between EFS and OS on the trial level. Hence, it remains debatable whether EFS represents a clinical benefit in itself for patient with untreated AML considering the strong correlation in treatment effects. Further validation is needed due to the small number of trials included and the heterogeneity across trials. Acknowledgment: We gratefully acknowledge the important contributions of the late Dr. Stephen H. Petersdorf, SWOG S0106 Study Chair. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U10CA180794, U10CA180820, U10CA180888; Clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00085124 (10201), NCT00651261 (10603), NCT01253070 (11001), NCT00085709 (SWOG S0106), and NCT00049517 (ECOG-ACRIN E1900) Disclosures Uy: Curis: Consultancy; GlycoMimetics: Consultancy. Larson:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; BristolMyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding.