Citations

PURPOSE Provide evidence- and expert-based recommendations for optimal use of imaging in advanced prostate cancer. Due to increases in research and utilization of novel imaging for advanced prostate cancer, this guideline is intended to outline techniques available and provide recommendations on appropriate use of imaging for specified patient subgroups. METHODS An Expert Panel was convened with members from ASCO and the Society of Abdominal Radiology, American College of Radiology, Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, American Urological Association, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Urologic Oncology to conduct a systematic review of the literature and develop an evidence-based guideline on the optimal use of imaging for advanced prostate cancer. Representative index cases of various prostate cancer disease states are presented, including suspected high-risk disease, newly diagnosed treatment-naïve metastatic disease, suspected recurrent disease after local treatment, and progressive disease while undergoing systemic treatment. A systematic review of the literature from 2013 to August 2018 identified fully published English-language systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses, reports of rigorously conducted phase III randomized controlled trials that compared ≥ 2 imaging modalities, and noncomparative studies that reported on the efficacy of a single imaging modality. RESULTS A total of 35 studies met inclusion criteria and form the evidence base, including 17 systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis and 18 primary research articles. RECOMMENDATIONS One or more of these imaging modalities should be used for patients with advanced prostate cancer: conventional imaging (defined as computed tomography [CT], bone scan, and/or prostate magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) and/or next-generation imaging (NGI), positron emission tomography [PET], PET/CT, PET/MRI, or whole-body MRI) according to the clinical scenario.

AbstractObjectiveTo conduct a systematic literature review of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for pain.DesignGrade the evidence for SCS.MethodsAn international, interdisciplinary work group conducted literature searches, reviewed abstracts, and selected studies for grading. Inclusion/exclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with intractable pain of greater than one year’s duration. Full studies were graded by two independent reviewers. Excluded studies were retrospective, had small numbers of subjects, or existed only as abstracts. Studies were graded 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.ResultsSCS has Level 1 evidence (strong) for axial back/lumbar radiculopathy or neuralgia (five high-quality RCTs) and complex regional pain syndrome (one high-quality RCT).ConclusionsHigh-level evidence supports SCS for treating chronic pain and complex regional pain syndrome. For patients with failed back surgery syndrome, SCS was more effective than reoperation or medical management. New stimulation waveforms and frequencies may provide a greater likelihood of pain relief compared with conventional SCS for patients with axial back pain, with or without radicular pain.

29 Background: Uterine clear cell carcinoma (UCCC) is a high-grade endometrial carcinoma. The current treatment is hysterectomy with post-operative chemotherapy and/or radiation. The 5-year disease free survival remains dismal for UCCC with 65% for early-stage and 54% for advanced stage disease. In addition, UCCC may be more resistant to chemotherapy or radiation therapy than the endometrioid subtype. The aim of the current study is to investigate the HER2 gene amplification status in UCCC and its role for targeted therapy in UCCC. Methods: Twenty-nine cases of UCCC were retrieved from surgical pathology archives of Mayo Clinic at Rochester between 2011 and 2015. All cases except one case were hysterectomy specimens. The blocks contain the most characteristic morphology of UCCC were selected and corresponding paraffin sections were subjected to fluorescent in situ hybridization for amplification of HER2 gene (Hercept, Abbott Molecular) and parallel immunohistochemical (IHC) study. Results: A total of 9 (of 29; 31%) UCCCs showed HER2 amplification and 4 (of 29; 14%) were considered equivocal for HER2 amplification by FISH. A total of 3 (10%) tumors showed 3+ HER2 overexpression while 11 (38%) UCCCs showed 2+ HER2 overexpression, 9 (31%) showed 1+ expression with the remaining cases showing no expression of HER2. Importantly, we observed significant intratumoral heterogeneity with regard to HER2 expression. Comparing the results of IHC with HER2 gene status as determined by FISH, 2 (66%) of the 3 cases that showed 3+ HER2 expression also showed amplification for HER2 by FISH, while 1 (33%) was equivocal for HER2 amplification. Of the 11 tumors that showed 2+ HER2 expression, 6 (55%) were amplified by FISH and 1 (9%) was equivocal. Conclusions: This is the largest number of UCCC cases that has been studied on the HER2 amplification and corresponding protein overexpression. Our results indicate that the HER2 overexpression is common in UCCCs and is frequently associated with HER2 amplification. These results also suggest that targeted adjuvant therapy with trastuzumab-based immunotherapy should be evaluated in patients with UCCC showing HER2 protein overexpression or HER2 gene amplification.

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

Introduction: Several recent studies have shown a gender disparity in professional doctoral introductions at major medical conferences, with female speakers being less likely to be introduced with a professional title. We sought to examine whether a similar disparity existed at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting. Methods: In this retrospective observational study, 8 investigators reviewed available presentations from video archives of the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting. Presentations were excluded if gender could not be identified and/or speaker did not have a doctoral degree. We collected data on speaker gender, speaker academic/non-academic rank, speaker geographic location, speaker training status, speaker session type and introducer gender were all collected. A "professional address" was defined as either "Dr. [First and Last Name]" or "Dr. [Last Name]." Descriptive statistics and regression modelling were used to analyze the data. Results:Of the videos reviewed, 645 presentations were eligible for analysis; 380 (59%) speakers were men and 264 (41%) were women. A comparison of male and female speaker cohorts is seen in Table 1. Forty-eight percent of both men and women held a Medical Doctor degree (MD), and the rest were MD/PhD or PhD graduates. Substantially more men (28%) were full professors compared to women (13%). Almost half (47%) of session types for both men and women speakers were designated as "basic science." In an adjusted analysis, more women (N=174, 66%) compared to men (N=225, 59%) received a professional address (P<.01). 43% of women were introduced by a female introducer and 42% of men were introduced by a female introducer (P=.79). In addition, 48 of the introducers (19%) for women and 68 of the introducers (18%) for men had a PhD or MD/PhD. In a logistic regression model adjusting for session type, academic rank, degree, geographic location, trainee status, and gender of introducer, there were no significant gender-based differences in professional introduction [Table 1; Odds Ratio (OR) 0.71, P=.06]. In addition, speakers with MD introducers were more likely to have a professional introduction compared to PhD introducers (OR 2.15, P=.03) regardless of sex. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that women were at least as likely as men to receive a professional address at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting. These results differ from previous studies of other professional medical conferences. These findings may reflect the strong presence of PhD graduates as both speakers and introducers. Both forms of bias (gender and degree-based) merit further study and interventions including speaker training to ensure combatting unconscious bias. Disclosures Velazquez: Midatech: Other: Husband owns stock in this company; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Other: Husband owns stock in this company; Corbus Pharmaceuticals: Other: Husband owns stock in this company; Johnson & Johnson: Other: Husband is employed by this company.

Background: Relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B cell lymphoma (LBCL) is associated with poor outcomes to standard salvage therapy (Crump M, et al. Blood. 2017). In SCHOLAR-1, a large multicenter, patient-level, retrospective study, patients with R/R diffuse LBCL had a 26% objective response rate (ORR) to the next line of therapy, a 7% complete response (CR) rate, and a median overall survival of 6.3 months (Crump M, et al. Blood 2017). Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy approved for patients with R/R LBCL with ≥ 2 prior systemic therapies. With a median follow-up of 27.1 months in ZUMA-1, the ORR with axi-cel was 83% (58% CR rate) in patients with refractory LBCL (Locke FL, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019). Activation of the costimulatory receptor 4-1BB (CD137) on CAR T cells may enhance axi-cel antitumor activity by enhancing T cell proliferation, function, and survival. Utomilumab (uto), an investigational monoclonal antibody agonist of the 4-1BB pathway, enhanced T cell function and survival in preclinical studies (Fisher TS, et al. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2012) and had favorable single-agent safety in patients (Segal NH, et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2018). Possible mechanisms of resistance to axi-cel are thought to be suboptimal CAR T cell expansion an exclusionary tumor microenvironment and CD19 target antigen loss (Neelapu SS, et al. Blood 2017, Rossi JM, et al J Immunother Cancer. 2018). Combination strategies that increase proliferation, expansion, and persistence of CAR T cells or prevent activation-induced cell death of CAR T cells may improve clinical outcomes observed with axi-cel. ZUMA-11 is a Phase 1/2 study investigating the efficacy and safety of axi-cel + uto in patients with refractory LBCL. Methods: The primary objectives of this study are to determine the safety, recommended Phase 2 dosing and timing (Phase 1), and efficacy (Phase 2) of axi-cel + uto in adult patients with refractory LBCL. Patients with progressive or stable disease as the best response to second-line chemotherapy or relapse ≤ 12 months after autologous stem cell transplantation, a prior anti-CD20 antibody and anthracycline-containing regimen, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1 are eligible. Patients with histologically proven primary mediastinal B cell lymphoma, history of Richter's transformation or chronic lymphocytic lymphoma, prior CAR T cell therapy, or central nervous system involvement of lymphoma are ineligible. In Phase 1, ≈24 patients in ≤ 3 cohorts will receive a single dose of axi-cel and escalating doses of uto (10, 30, or 100 mg) using a 3 + 3 design in up to 4 of 6 cohorts. The recommended uto dose will be based on dose-limiting toxicities and other factors. Patients will be leukapheresed and may receive optional, nonchemotherapy bridging therapy per investigator decision. After conditioning chemotherapy, patients will receive a single infusion of axi-cel (target dose, 2 × 106 CAR T cells/kg) on Day 0 followed by uto on Day 1 and every 4 weeks for 6 months or until progressive disease. Patients will be treated one at a time during Phase 1, and patients treated with axi-cel will be staggered by ≥ 2 weeks. Day 21 uto administration will be explored if toxicity is unacceptable with Day 1 administration. The primary endpoints are incidence of dose-limiting toxicities in Phase 1 and CR rate in Phase 2. Secondary endpoints include ORR, duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, safety, and levels of CAR T cells and cytokines in blood. This study uses a single-arm design to estimate the true CR rate; with a sample size of 27 patients, of which ≤ 3 patients will have been treated in the Phase 1 portion, the maximum half-width of the 95% confidence interval about response will be ≥ 21%. ZUMA-11 is open and accruing patients. Disclosures Reshef: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Atara: Consultancy, Research Funding; Magenta: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Miklos:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Precision Bioscience: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; Miltenyi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Becton Dickinson: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; AlloGene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite, A Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene-Juno: Consultancy. Timmerman:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kite, A Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; ImmunGene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding. Jacobson:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; Bayer: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Humanigen: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Pfizer: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support. Bennani:Kite, A Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Rossi:Kite, A Gilead Company: Employment. Sherman:Kite, A Gilead Company: Employment. Sun:Kite, A Gilead Company: Employment. Palluconi:Kite, A Gilead Company: Employment. Kim:Kite, A Gilead Company: Employment. Jain:Kite/Gilead: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Although approximately half of adult patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) achieve long-term survival, those who relapse have poor long-term outcomes (El Fakih et al. Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Ther. 2017; Oriol et al. Haematologica. 2010). The initial report of Phase 1 of ZUMA-3, the Phase 1/2 trial of KTE-C19 for treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) ALL (NCT02614066), has thus far demonstrated promising efficacy among patients infused with KTE-C19, with a 71% complete remission (CR) rate (CR or CR with incomplete hematologic recovery [CRi]), 88% undetectable minimal residual disease (MRD), and manageable toxicity across all doses (Shah et al. ASH 2017. #888). Here, we present updated safety and efficacy data from Phase 1 of ZUMA-3. Methods: Adult patients (≥ 18 y) with R/R ALL (Ph+ allowed), > 5% bone marrow blasts, and ECOG 0-1 received 2, 1, or 0.5 × 106 CAR T cells/kg after low-dose conditioning chemotherapy with fludarabine 25 mg/m2/day for 3 days and a single dose of cyclophosphamide 900 mg/m2 on the third day of conditioning. The primary endpoint for Phase 1 was incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Key secondary endpoints included incidence and time to onset and resolution of adverse events (AEs), rate of undetectable MRD remission in the bone marrow using flow cytometry, and duration of remission. KTE-C19 expansion and persistence were also assessed. Safety analyses included all patients who received KTE-C19, and patients with ≥ 2 months of follow-up were evaluated for efficacy. Results: As of April 12, 2018, 35 patients have received KTE-C19 with a median follow-up of 11 months (range, 2 - 25 months). The median age was 40 years (range, 18 - 69 years), 51% of patients were male, 66% had ECOG 1, 13 patients (37%) had prior blinatumomab, and 60% had received ≥ 3 prior lines of treatment. The median bone marrow blast burden at screening was 70% (range, 5 - 100). Six patients received the 2 × 106 cells/kg dose, 14 received 1 × 106 cells/kg, and 15 received 0.5 × 106 cells/kg. No DLTs were observed in the DLT period. The most common Grade ≥ 3 AEs were hypotension (40%), pyrexia (34%), decreased platelet counts (34%), and anemia (31%). Grade ≥ 3 CRS occurred in 9 patients (26%), with a median time to onset of 5 days (range, 1 - 15 days). There were 2 KTE-C19-related Grade 5 events: 1 cerebral infarction at the 0.5 × 106 cells/kg dose and 1 previously reported multiorgan failure secondary to cytokine release syndrome (CRS) at the 2 × 106 cells/kg dose. Grade ≥ 3 CRS resolved in all patients (not including 2 patients with a Grade 5 event), and the median time to resolution was 11 days (range, 7 - 42 days). Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent neurologic events occurred in 16 patients (46%), and the median time to onset was 7 days (range, 4 - 24 days). With the exception of 2 patients with unresolved neurologic events due to death, Grade ≥ 3 neurologic events resolved in all patients (14/14), with a median time to resolution of 17 days (range, 6 - 53 days). Among the 32 patients evaluable for response, the overall rate of undetectable MRD was 78% (95% CI, 60% - 91%). CR or CRi was achieved by 23 patients (72%), and 1 patient (3%) had blast-free BM. KTE-C19 levels were examined in 23 patients as of July 31, 2017. Robust KTE-C19 expansion was observed across all dose levels assessed. Conclusion: High rates of remission were achieved by adult patients with R/R ALL, with approximately three-quarters of patients achieving CR or CRi with undetectable MRD after a single dose of KTE-C19 in ZUMA-3. The safety profile was generally manageable, and most cases of high-grade CRS and neurologic events resolved. These results demonstrate that KTE-C19 offers clinical benefit for patients with otherwise limited treatment options. Disclosures Wierda: AbbVie, Inc: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Bishop:United Healthcare: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Juneau Therapeutics: Speakers Bureau; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Speakers Bureau. Logan:Adaptive Biotech: Consultancy; Napajen: Consultancy; Shire: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Astellas: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding. Schiller:Astellas Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; bluebird bio: Research Funding. Holmes:Unum: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy. Abedi:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; CIRM: Research Funding; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Research Funding. Arellano:Cephalon: Research Funding. Pagel:Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Mardiros:Kite, a Gilead Company: Employment; Kite, a Gilead Company: Equity Ownership; Mustang Bio: Patents & Royalties; Kite, a Gilead Company: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES. Shen:Zhejiang DTRM Biopharma LLC: Other: Clinical Operations Director. Vezan:Kite Pharma: Employment; Kite, Gilead, Abbv, MRK: Equity Ownership. Jain:Kite Pharma, Amgen: Equity Ownership; Kite Pharma: Employment; Kite Pharma: Patents & Royalties.

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 - IMIDs are critical in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM). Unfortunately, many patients become resistant and this is a major challenge in MM therapy. IMID resistance can be caused by CRBN mutations (rarely) and by upregulation of specific antioxidative mechanisms. We hypothesized that measuring baseline antioxidative capacity might be a useful predictor of IMID sensitivity in the clinic. Methods - To develop a quantitative assay for determining cellular antioxidative capacity of MM cells we measured total cellular oxidized flavin adenine dinucleotide (FAD) after treatment with H2O2. FAD has auto-fluorescent properties that can be measured via flow cytometry. Cells with high antioxidative capacity generate more FAD, and cells with low anti-oxidative capacity generate less FAD. MM cells with an increase in FAD after H2O2 were considered IMID resistant and those with no change in FAD were considered IMID sensitive (Figure 1). Clinical IMID resistance/sensitivity was defined clinically during blinded retrospective review, with disease progression based on the IMWG criteria. After blinded review of clinical outcomes, the patient flow cytometry results were disclosed to evaluate the predictive value of the flow cytometry assay for detection of IMID resistance. Results - Of 40 patients who underwent testing, 26 were IMID resistant via flow and were considered as being clinical resistant 17 (65%). Conversely, 14 patients were IMID sensitive via flow and 12 (86%) were considered to be clinical sensitive. There was a significant correlation between clinical assessment and flow cytometry in determination of IMID resistance patterns (Table 1). The sensitivity and specificity of our assay was 89% and 57% with a positive and negative predictive value of 65% and 86% respectively. A limitation of our clinical assessment was that 16 patients (38%) were treated with combination therapy; IMIDs plus a proteasome inhibitor or a monoclonal antibody. Of the 11 patients with discordant results by flow and clinical outcome, 7 (64%) were not on therapy at the time of testing and 6 (55%) had flow testing on the bone marrow sample performed on day 100 following an autologous transplant. Two (7%) of the 29 patients with correlative results were off all therapy at the time of testing, 1 with testing on the day 100 marrow sample after transplant. Conclusions - This early testing of our assay shows promising results predicting clinical sensitivity via our flow based assay. The testing demonstrates a high sensitivity and negative predictive value, with less ability to assess for resistance. However, there were limitations to this study. The majority of patients with discordant results were off IMID therapy at the time of flow cytometry and many of these were assessed on transplant day 100 marrow samples. Depth of measureable residual disease was not readily available on all marrow samples tested. It is probable that flow testing for IMID resistance is inaccurate in patients with deeper responses to therapy, especially those who are minimum residual disease (MRD) negative. Additionally, several patients were on combination IMID, proteasome inhibitor, and monoclonal antibody. It is possible that clinical IMID resistance was not detected due to the anti-MM activity of the additional therapies. Additional larger scale prospective studies are needed to validate these findings as this method of testing could potentially provide providers with powerful information allowing them to personalize therapy for their patients. Disclosures Fonseca: Mayo Clinic: Employment; Amgen: Consultancy.