Citations

8017 Background: LAM-002 is a selective inhibitor of PIKfyve that disrupts lysosomal homeostasis, inducing cytotoxicity in B-cell lymphoma models as monotherapy or with anti-CD20 or anti-PDL1 antibodies (Gayle et al., Blood 2017;129(13):1768). Methods: In this study, patients received LAM-002 orally 2-3 times per day (BID or TID) in a 3+3 escalation. Additional patients received LAM-002 125 mg BID as monotherapy; with rituximab 375 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) and or subcutaneously weekly (Q1W) x 4 → Q8W x 4; or atezolizumab 1200 mg IV Q3W until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Pharmacokinetics (PK) were assessed for 8 hours postdose on Days 1 and 8. Efficacy was evaluated Q6-12W. Results: The study enrolled 62 patients (M:F n = 32/30); median [range] age = 69 [46-89] years; with diagnoses (n) of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (25), follicular lymphoma (19), marginal zone lymphoma (8), mantle cell lymphoma (5), or chronic lymphocytic leukemia (5) to receive LAM-002 alone (n) at 50 mg BID (3), 100 mg BID (8), 150 mg BID (8), 75 mg TID (4), or 125 mg BID (20); LAM-002/rituximab (12); or LAM-002/atezolizumab (7). During LAM-002 dose-ranging (50 mg BID → 100 mg BID → 150 mg BID → 75 mg TID → 125 mg BID) transient, reversible nausea and/or diarrhea occurred at 150 mg BID and 75 mg TID, resulting in a LAM-002 recommended Phase 2 dosing regimen (RP2DR) of 125 mg BID. Among 39 patients receiving LAM-002, 125 mg BID, alone or in combination for up to 22 cycles (1.9 years), adverse events were typically low-grade. LAM-002 PK showed rapid absorption, dose proportionality, minimal accumulation, and no substantive changes with rituximab or atezolizumab coadministration. In patients with follicular lymphoma and median [range] prior therapies = 3 [1-9] treated with the RP2DR, objective response rates were 2/7 (29%; 1 complete response [CR], 1 partial response [PR]) with LAM-002, 5/8 (63%; 1 CR, 4 PRs) with LAM-002/rituximab, and 2/2 (100%; 2 PRs) with LAM-002/atezolizumab. Conclusions: LAM-002, the first clinical PIKfyve inhibitor, is safe alone or with full-dose anti-CD20 or anti-PD-L1 inhibition. LAM-002 does not cause the myelosuppressive or immune adverse events associated with lenalidomide or PI3K inhibitors. Promising efficacy supports registration-directed Phase 2/3 testing of LAM-002 monotherapy and combination therapy for patients with previously treated follicular lymphoma. Clinical trial information: NCT02594384 .

AbstractImmune checkpoint inhibitor therapies targeting PD‐1/PD‐L1 are now the standard of care in oncology across several hematologic and solid tumor types, including triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). Patients with metastatic or locally advanced TNBC with PD‐L1 expression on immune cells occupying ≥1% of tumor area demonstrated survival benefit with the addition of atezolizumab to nab‐paclitaxel. However, concerns regarding variability between immunohistochemical PD‐L1 assay performance and inter‐reader reproducibility have been raised. High tumor‐infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) have also been associated with response to PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors in patients with breast cancer (BC). TILs can be easily assessed on hematoxylin and eosin–stained slides and have shown reliable inter‐reader reproducibility. As an established prognostic factor in early stage TNBC, TILs are soon anticipated to be reported in daily practice in many pathology laboratories worldwide. Because TILs and PD‐L1 are parts of an immunological spectrum in BC, we propose the systematic implementation of combined PD‐L1 and TIL analyses as a more comprehensive immuno‐oncological biomarker for patient selection for PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibition‐based therapy in patients with BC. Although practical and regulatory considerations differ by jurisdiction, the pathology community has the responsibility to patients to implement assays that lead to optimal patient selection. We propose herewith a risk‐management framework that may help mitigate the risks of suboptimal patient selection for immuno‐therapeutic approaches in clinical trials and daily practice based on combined TILs/PD‐L1 assessment in BC. © 2020 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction Amyloidosis is a rare disease and there are currently no FDA approved therapies for AL amyloidosis. Most of the therapeutic and disease data come from expert guidelines, consensus and retrospective review papers. There is a paucity of data specifically for relapsed/refractory AL amyloidosis (RRAL). We conducted this systematic review of clinical trials, retrospective and prospective cohort studies to evaluate patterns of relapse and therapeutic options for RRAL. Methods PubMed and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for clinical trials, retrospective and prospective cohort studies on RRAL. Studies were selected according to PRISMA guidelines. Cross-trial comparison of included studies and meta-analysis could not be performed for a number of reasons but mainly due to a limited number of studies on one particular treatment regimen. Results From a total of 511 studies, 11 studies (n= 698 patients) met our inclusion criteria. Five were phase I/II clinical trials, five retrospective cohort studies, and one prospective cohort study. Most studies had less than 50 patients. The largest study, a retrospective cohort by Tandon et al. included 366 patients. Mean age was 61.2. Three studies reported 2 median prior lines of therapy (n= 22, 28, and 84 patients); two reported 3 median prior lines of therapy (n= 25 and 24) and 6 studies didn't specify this data. Prior treatment options included proteasome inhibitors (PI), most commonly bortezomib (n= 259), followed by melphalan (n=211), high dose melphalan and stem cell transplant (HDM/SCT [n= 207]) and IMiDs most commonly lenalidomide (n=154). Time to progression (TTP) from first-line treatment was reported in only 4 studies as 1 month, 5 months, 5 months and 34 months respectively. The study reporting a TTP of 34-months had 11 patients who received HDM/SCT as first line treatment. Three studies reported information about their criteria for initiation of subsequent treatment. Subsequent treatment was mostly a combination regimen with dexamethasone or an alkylating agent. The only agent evaluated as single agent was bortezomib in a phase I/II clinical trial by Reece et al. Therapeutic options for RRAL are PI (non-specific) based therapy (n= 145), lenalidomide (n= 105), bortezomib (n= 99), IMiD (non-specific) based therapy (n=83), melphalan based therapy (n= 33), carfilzomib (n=28), pomalidomide (n=27), ASCT (n= 25), daratumumab (n=25) and bendamustine (n=22). Efficacy: Hematologic responses were reported to be following: bortezomib + dexamethasone/melphalan (85%, n=17/20), daratumumab + dexamethasone (76%, n= 19/25), HDM/ASCT (73%, n= 8/11), single agent bortezomib (67%, n=23/34), carfilzomib ± dexamethasone (63%, n= 15/24), lenalidomide + dexamethasone (61%, n=51/84), bendamustine + dexamethasone (55%, 11/22) and pomalidomide + dexamethasone (50%, 12/24). Five of eleven studies reported organ responses which ranged from 18% to 23%. The studies which reported organ responses had evaluated the following agents: single agent bortezomib, carfilzomib ± dexamethasone, lenalidomide + dexamethasone, and bendamustine + dexamethasone. Best survival outcomes were seen with bortezomib with median overall survival (OS) 62 months. With bendamustine and dexamethasone (retrospective cohort study n=22) median OS was 31 months. With lenalidomide + dexamethasone (prospective cohort study n=24 ) median OS was 14 months. For the remaining studies, the median OS was either not reported or not reached at the time of presentation of data. Conclusion AL amyloidosis patients progressing after front line therapy show good responses with bortezomib (median overall survival of 62 months). Novel combinations using lenalidomide, pomalidomide, carfilzomib, daratumumab, and bendamustine show promising efficacy. Ongoing trials of daratumumab (AMYDARA trial) and ixazomib (TOURAMALINE-AL1) will bring further insight into therapeutic armamentarium for RRAL patients. After relapse, a salvage HDM/ASCT can be considered. Comparisons of regimen efficacy between studies are not practical because of multiple factors which include but are not limited to heterogenous nature of AL patients, small sample sizes, variable prior treatments, exposure to novel agents, observational study versus clinical trial and variable endpoints. Table Disclosures Anwer: Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; In-Cyte: Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Aims Wireless capsule endoscopy (WCE) and magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) are increasingly utilized to evaluate the small bowel (SB) in Crohn’s disease (CD). The primary aims were to compare the ability of WCE and MRE to detect SB inflammation in children with newly diagnosed CD, and in the terminal ileum (TI) to compare them to ileo-colonoscopy. Secondary aims were to compare diagnostic accuracy of WCE and MRE and changes in Paris classification after each study. Methods Patients (10 to 17 years of age) requiring ileo-colonoscopy for suspected CD were invited to participate. Only patients with endoscopic/histologic evidence of CD underwent MRE and WCE. SB inflammation and extent were documented and comparative analyses performed. Results Of 38 initially recruited subjects, 20 completed the study. WCE and MRE were similarly sensitive in identifying active TI inflammation (16 [80%] versus 12 [60%]) and any SB inflammation (17 [85%] versus 16 [80%]). However, WCE detected more extensive SB disease than MRE with active inflammation throughout the SB in 15 [75%] versus 1 [5%] patient (P < 0.001). Moreover, WCE was more likely to detect proximal SB disease (jejunum and ileum) compared to MRE (85% versus 50%, P = 0.04). Overall, the Paris classification changed in 65% and 85% of patients following MRE and WCE, respectively. Conclusions WCE is as sensitive as MRE for identifying active TI inflammation, but appears more sensitive in identifying more proximal SB inflammation. In the absence of concern regarding stricturing or extra-luminal disease WCE can be considered for the evaluation of suspected SB CD.

AbstractBackgroundUnderstanding the factors associated with early readmissions following atrial flutter (AFL) ablation is critical to reduce the cost and improving the quality of life in AFL patients.MethodThe study cohort was derived from the national readmission database 2013–2014. International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD‐9‐CM) diagnosis code 427.32 and procedure code 37.34 were used to identify AFL and catheter ablation, respectively. The primary and secondary outcomes were 90‐day readmission and complications including in‐hospital mortality. Cox proportional regression and hierarchical logistic regression were used to generate the predictors of primary and secondary outcomes respectively. Readmission causes were identified by ICD‐9‐CM code in primary diagnosis field of readmissions.ResultReadmission rate of 18.19% (n = 1,010 with 1,396 readmissions) was noted among AFL patients (n = 5552). Common etiologies for readmission were heart failure (12.23%), atrial fibrillation (11.13%), atrial flutter (8.93%), respiratory complications (9.42%), infections (7.4%), bleeding (7.39%, including GI bleed–4.09% and intracranial bleed–0.79%) and stroke/TIA (1.89%). Multivariate predictors of 90‐day readmission (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval, P value) were preexisting heart failure (1.30, 1.13–1.49, P < 0.001), chronic pulmonary disease (1.37, 1.18–1.58, P < 0.001), anemia (1.23, 1.02–1.49, P = 0.035), malignancy (1.87, 1.40–2.49, P < 0.001), weekend admission compared to weekday admission (1.23, 1.02–1.47, P = 0.029), and length of stay (LOS) ≥5 days (1.39, 1.16–1.65, P < 0.001). Note that 50% of readmissions happened within 30 days of discharge.ConclusionCardiac etiologies remain the most common reason for the readmission after AFL ablation. Identifying high risk patients, careful discharge planning, and close follow‐up postdischarge can potentially reduce readmission rates in AFL ablation patients.

Assessment of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in histopathologic specimens can provide important prognostic information in diverse solid tumor types, and may also be of value in predicting response to treatments. However, implementation as a routine clinical biomarker has not yet been achieved. As successful use of immune checkpoint inhibitors and other forms of immunotherapy become a clinical reality, the need for widely applicable, accessible, and reliable immunooncology biomarkers is clear. In part 1 of this review we briefly discuss the host immune response to tumors and different approaches to TIL assessment. We propose a standardized methodology to assess TILs in solid tumors on hematoxylin and eosin sections, in both primary and metastatic settings, based on the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarker Working Group guidelines for TIL assessment in invasive breast carcinoma. A review of the literature regarding the value of TIL assessment in different solid tumor types follows in part 2. The method we propose is reproducible, affordable, easily applied, and has demonstrated prognostic and predictive significance in invasive breast carcinoma. This standardized methodology may be used as a reference against which other methods are compared, and should be evaluated for clinical validity and utility. Standardization of TIL assessment will help to improve consistency and reproducibility in this field, enrich both the quality and quantity of comparable evidence, and help to thoroughly evaluate the utility of TILs assessment in this era of immunotherapy.

Assessment of the immune response to tumors is growing in importance as the prognostic implications of this response are increasingly recognized, and as immunotherapies are evaluated and implemented in different tumor types. However, many different approaches can be used to assess and describe the immune response, which limits efforts at implementation as a routine clinical biomarker. In part 1 of this review, we have proposed a standardized methodology to assess tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in solid tumors, based on the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarkers Working Group guidelines for invasive breast carcinoma. In part 2 of this review, we discuss the available evidence for the prognostic and predictive value of TILs in common solid tumors, including carcinomas of the lung, gastrointestinal tract, genitourinary system, gynecologic system, and head and neck, as well as primary brain tumors, mesothelioma and melanoma. The particularities and different emphases in TIL assessment in different tumor types are discussed. The standardized methodology we propose can be adapted to different tumor types and may be used as a standard against which other approaches can be compared. Standardization of TIL assessment will help clinicians, researchers and pathologists to conclusively evaluate the utility of this simple biomarker in the current era of immunotherapy.

AbstractBackgroundSince the human genome has been sequenced many mysteries of cell biology have been unravelled, thereby clarifying the pathogenesis of several diseases, particularly cancer. In members of kindreds with certain hereditary diseases, it is now possible early in life to predict with great certainty whether or not a family member has inherited the mutated allele causing the disease. In hereditary malignancies this has been particularly important, because in affected family members there is the possibility of removing the organ destined to develop cancer before malignancy develops or while it is in situ. At first consideration, it would appear that “prophylactic surgery” would have a place in many hereditary malignancies; however, the procedure has applicability only if certain criteria are met: (1) the genetic mutation causing the hereditary malignancy must have a very high penetrance and be expressed regardless of environmental factors; (2) there must be a highly reliable test to identify patients who have inherited the mutated gene; (3) the organ must be removed with minimal morbidity and virtually no mortality; (4) there must be a suitable replacement for the function of the removed organ; and (5) there must be a reliable method of determining over time that the patient has been cured by “prophylactic surgery.”ConclusionsIn this monograph we review several hereditary malignancies and consider those where prophylactic surgery might be useful. As we learn, there are various barriers to performing the procedure in many common hereditary cancer syndromes. The archetype disease syndromes, which meet each of the five criteria mentioned above and where prophylactic surgery is most useful, are the type 2 multiple endocrine neoplasia (MEN) syndromes: MEN2A, MEN2B, and the related familial medullary thyroid carcinoma. An additional benefit of the Human Genome Project, has been the development of pharmacologic and biologic compounds that block the metabolic pathway(s) activated by specific genetic mutations. Many of these compounds have shown efficacy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic cancers, and there is the likelihood that they will prove beneficial in preventing the outgrowth of malignant cells in patients destined to develop a hereditary cancer.