Citations

TPS8068 Background: Elranatamab (PF-06863135) is a humanized bispecific antibody that targets both B cell maturation antigen (BCMA) on multiple myeloma (MM) cells and CD3 on T cells resulting in T cell- mediated cytotoxicity. In preclinical studies, elranatamab has demonstrated anti-myeloma activity and delayed disease progression. In the ongoing phase 1 MagnetisMM-1 study, elranatamab has demonstrated clinical efficacy and a manageable safety profile in patients with relapsed/refractory MM (Bahlis et al, J Clin Oncol 2021). Elranatamab maximum tolerated dose has not yet been reached. Subcutaneous (SC) elranatamab at the recommended dose of 76 mg QW on a 28-d cycle with a 2 step-up priming dose regimen administered during the first week is currently being evaluated in a phase 2 study, MagnetisMM-3 (Lesokhin et al, Blood, 2021). Methods: MagnetisMM-9 (start date: Oct 2021; estimated completion date: Apr 2025) is an open-label, multicenter, non-randomized phase 1/2 study evaluating an alternative priming regimen to further mitigate cytokine release syndrome (CRS) incidence and severity and to evaluate SC elranatamab Q2W and Q4W dosing regimens in patients with relapsed/refractory MM. In part 1 of the study, patients will receive premedications and 2 step-up priming doses on cycle 1 D1 (4 mg) and D4 (20 mg), followed by elranatamab 76 mg QW for 6 cycles, and a dose Q2W thereafter if partial response or better is achieved and maintained. In part 2, higher doses of elranatamab ( > 76 mg) at increased intervals between doses will be evaluated. The primary endpoint is grade ≥2 CRS rate during cycle 1. Secondary endpoints include dose-limiting toxicities (part 2 only), objective response rate, duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, minimal residual disease negativity rate, safety, and pharmacokinetics. Eligible patients should be ≥18 years of age with a MM diagnosis and measurable disease according to IMWG criteria, refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, one immunomodulatory drug, and one anti-CD38 antibody, relapsed/refractory to their last treatment regimen, and have an ECOG performance status ≤1. Key exclusion criteria are smoldering MM, active plasma cell leukemia, amyloidosis, POEMS syndrome, stem cell transplant within 12 weeks of enrollment, active, uncontrolled bacterial, fungal, or viral infections, or any other active malignancy within 3 years prior to enrollment (except for adequately treated basal cell or squamous cell skin cancer, or carcinoma in situ), or previous treatment with an anti-BCMA bispecific antibody. The study is open at centers in the USA, UK, Japan, and Taiwan. Clinical trial information: NCT05014412.

TPS4170 Background: IMbrave150 is the first study demonstrating the benefit of anti-PDL1 in the frontline treatment of aHCC, and established Atezo/Bev as a new 1st line standard for aHCC. There is currently limited evidence to guide subsequent therapy for aHCC patients progressing on Atezo/Bev. ACCRU-GI-2008 is designed to determine the benefit of continuing Atezo into 2nd line and the safety of Atezo plus a MKI in patients with aHCC who previously received Atezo/Bev. The study is being conducted across 12 centers in the United States (ClincalTrials.gov#: NCT05168163). Methods: This study utilizes a 2:1 randomized phase II design where eligible patients will receive either Atezo/MKI (experimental arm) or MKI alone (control). Patients will be stratified according to the MKI choice (cabozantinib or lenvatinib, per physician’s decision), etiology of HCC (viral vs. non-viral) and alpha-fetoprotein level ( < 400 vs. > = 400 ng/mL). The major eligibility criteria are histological/cytological diagnosis or clinical diagnosis of HCC per the AASLD or WASL 2018 guidelines, has advanced disease not amendable to curative treatment, previously received and progressed on Atezo/Bev, has received only 1 previous line of systemic therapy (2nd line only), ECOG PS 0-1, Child Pugh Class A, adequate organ reserves and RECIST v1.1 measurable disease; previous MKI for advanced disease is excluded. The primary endpoints are overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). A total sample size of 122, with 89 PFS events, we will have 80% power to detect an improvement in median PFS from 4 to 7 months, assuming a one-sided significance level of 0.05. With approximately 84 deaths, we will have 80% power to detect an improvement in median OS from 10 to 18 months, assuming a one-sided significance level of 0.05. The overall one-sided significance level, for the study, is 0.1. An OS interim analysis will be conducted at 89 PFS events. Secondary endpoints include objective response, duration of response, and adverse events. Archival tumor and serial blood samples will be collected to evaluate for potential prediction biomarkers and mechanisms of sensitivity/resistance. Baseline and on-treatment tumor biopsy specimens will also be collected from the initial 10 patients of each arm. The study is approved by the ethics committee and enrollment to the study will be underway by Q2/3 2022. Clinical trial information: NCT05168163.

7503 Background: To date, an overall survival (OS) benefit from upfront treatment for new treatment combinations over existing approaches has rarely been shown in first-line classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). With the introduction of newer active therapies for relapsed/refractory disease, demonstration of improved OS with first-line therapy has been challenging. In ECHELON-1 (NCT01712490), 5-year follow-up analyses supported the long-term progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with first-line brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) vs doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) in patients (pts) with stage III/IV cHL, independent of interim positron emission tomography status. A+AVD had a manageable long-term safety profile, with numerically fewer second malignancies and a greater number of pregnancies reported vs ABVD (Connors et al, NEJM 2018; Straus et al, Lancet Haematol 2021). We report a prespecified OS analysis after approximately 6 years’ follow-up (cut-off, June 1, 2021). Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive up to 6 cycles of A+AVD (n = 664) or ABVD (n = 670) on day 1 and 15 every 28 days. OS was the key secondary endpoint and was an event-driven, pre-specified, alpha-controlled analysis in the intention to treat population. Results: At a median follow-up of 73 months, 39 and 64 OS events occurred in A+AVD and ABVD arms, respectively: OS significantly favored A+AVD vs ABVD (HR 0.590; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.396–0.879; p = 0.009). Estimated 6-year OS rates (95% CI) were 93.9% (91.6–95.5) vs 89.4% (86.6–91.7) with A+AVD vs ABVD, respectively. There was a consistent OS benefit for A+AVD vs ABVD across prespecified subgroups. The 6-year PFS estimate was 82.3% (79.1–85.0) vs 74.5% (70.8–77.7) with A+AVD vs ABVD, respectively (HR 0.678 [95% CI 0.532–0.863]). Overall, A+AVD had a comparable long-term safety profile to ABVD. Treatment-emergent peripheral neuropathy continued to resolve or improve in both arms, with 86% (379/443) and 87% (249/286) of cases in the A+AVD and ABVD arms either completely resolving (72% vs 79%) or improving (14% vs 8%) by last follow-up. Fewer second malignancies were reported in the A+AVD vs ABVD arm (23 vs 32). More female patients reported pregnancy (49 vs 28) or live births (42 vs 19 in females) in the A+AVD vs the ABVD arm; no stillbirths were reported. No new safety signals were identified. Conclusions: A+AVD treatment resulted in a statistically significant 41% reduction in the risk of death vs ABVD, with a manageable safety profile consistent with prior reports. These outcomes confirm A+AVD as a preferred option for pts with previously untreated stage III/IV cHL. Clinical trial information: NCT01712490.

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic produced unprecedented demands and rapidly changing evidence and practices within critical care settings. The purpose of this study was to identify factors and strategies that hindered and facilitated effective implementation of new critical care practices and policies in response to the pandemic. Methods We used a cross-sectional, qualitative study design to conduct semi-structured in-depth interviews with critical care leaders across the United States. The interviews were audio-taped and professionally transcribed verbatim. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), three qualitative researchers used rapid analysis methods to develop relevant codes and identify salient themes. Results: Among the 17 hospitals that agreed to participate in this study, 31 clinical leaders were interviewed. The CFIR-driven rapid analysis of the interview transcripts generated 12 major themes, which included six implementation facilitators (i.e., factors that promoted the implementation of new critical care practices) and six implementation barriers (i.e., factors that hindered the implementation of new critical care practices). These themes spanned the five CFIR domains (Intervention Characteristics, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, Characteristics of Individuals, and Process) and 11 distinct CFIR constructs. Salient facilitators to implementation efforts included staff resilience, commitment, and innovation, which were supported through collaborative feedback and decision-making mechanisms between leadership and frontline staff. Major identified barriers included lack of access to reliable and transferable information, available resources, uncollaborative leadership and communication styles. Conclusions: Through applying the CFIR to organize and synthesize our qualitative data, this study revealed important insights into implementation determinants that influenced the uptake of new critical care practices during COVID-19. As the pandemic continues to burden critical care units, clinical leaders should consider emulating the effective change management strategies identified. The cultivation of streamlined, engaging, and collaborative leadership and communication mechanisms not only supported implementation of new care practices across sites, but it also helped reduce salient implementation barriers, particularly resource and staffing shortages. Future critical care implementation studies should seek to capitalize on identified facilitators and reduce barriers.

Objectives The aim of this study is to introduce the infrapedicular approach to CT-guided spine interventions, a specialized technique that can safely expand the scope of spine lesions amenable to treatment, and to document the feasibility in a variety of procedural scenarios to the extent possible with a retrospective case series. Methods Data from 24 cases performed at a single institution over a 10-year period were retrospectively reviewed to assess the technical feasibility and safety profile of the technique. Results The infrapedicular approach enabled a technically satisfactory procedural result in 24 cases (mean age 63.9 years, range 35–83 years). Two peri-procedural complications occurred, including a small pneumothorax and a cerebrospinal fluid leak, both of which resolved with conservative treatment. No lasting injurious effects or additional complications were identified. The infrapedicular approach was found to be particularly useful in multiple technically challenging scenarios: it facilitates access to lesions in the inferior vertebral body, allows biopsy, cement augmentation, or ablation of high thoracic lesions difficult to treat due to limitations of steep angulation of fluoroscopy and CT scanners, and enables treatment of large lesions by using multiple overlapping probes.

Background Patients with metastatic melanoma rely on PD-(L)1 immunotherapy, but only one-third of patients experience treatment response and all initial responders eventually develop resistance. Tumour-derived extracellular vesicles expressing Programmed death ligand 1 (evPD-L1) and soluble Programmed death ligand 1 (sPD-L1) in peripheral blood of patients with melanoma limit PD-(L)1 immunotherapy and correlate with poor survival. Therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) removes immunosuppressive evPD-L1 and sPD-L1. We hypothesise that TPE may rescue and restore antimelanoma immunity. Methods In this two-arm study, 60 patients with metastatic melanoma progressing on checkpoint inhibition will be accrued. All patients will undergo radiotherapy on days 1–5 (at least one measurable lesion will not be irradiated) and ongoing checkpoint inhibition on day 8 and every 2–3 weeks per standard of care. Patients with baseline sPD-L1 level of ≥1.7 ng/mL and adequate clinical capacity will be enrolled in the TPE intervention arm and will undergo TPE on days 5–7, in addition to standard of care radiotherapy and immunotherapy. Other patients will remain in the standard of care arm. The primary endpoint of the study is to evaluate safety. Secondary endpoints include kinetics of sPD-L1 and evPD-L1 and clinical response by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) criteria. Study registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04581382 ). Ethics and dissemination This trial has been approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board. It will assess the safety and feasibility of TPE in improving outcomes for PD-(L)1 inhibitor immunotherapy in melanoma. Data will be maintained on a secure database with deidentified patient information. Data will be shared on publication in a peer-reviewed journal without the aid of professional writers. If successful, this trial will lay the ground for phase II studies that will include cancer treated with PD-(L)1 inhibitors which may benefit from TPE such as renal, bladder and lung cancers. Trial registration number NCT04581382 .

Abstract Purpose: This phase Ib/2 trial investigated pembrolizumab-containing trimodality therapy in patients with gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma. Patients and Methods: Patients with GEJ adenocarcinoma (cT1–3NanyM0) received neoadjuvant pembrolizumab-containing chemoradiation (CROSS regimen) followed by surgical resection and adjuvant pembrolizumab. The primary endpoints were tolerability in the first 16 patients and pathologic complete response [pCR (ypT0N0)]. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). An independent propensity-score-matched cohort (treated with CROSS without immunotherapy) was used for comparison. Exploratory analyses included immune biomarkers in the tumor microenvironment (TME) and plasma. Results: We enrolled 31 eligible patients, of whom 29 received all expected doses of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab and 28 underwent R0 resection. Safety endpoints were met. The primary efficacy endpoint was not met [7/31 (22.6%) achieved pCR]. Patients with high [i.e., combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 10] baseline expression of programmed death (PD)-L1 in the TME had a significantly higher pCR rate than those with low expression [50.0% (4/8) vs. 13.6% (3/22); P = 0.046]. Patients with high PD-L1 expression also experienced longer PFS and OS than propensity-score-matched patients. Among trial patients with PD-L1 CPS &lt; 10, unprespecified analysis explored whether extracellular vesicles (EV) could identify further responders: an elevated plasma level of PD-L1–expressing EVs was significantly associated with higher pCR. Conclusions: Adding pembrolizumab to trimodality therapy showed acceptable tolerability but did not meet the pre-specified pCR endpoint. Exploratory analyses suggested that high PD-L1 expression in the TME and/or on EVs may identify patients most likely to achieve tumor response.

Abstract Background: Colorectal cancer has a strong epigenetic component that is accompanied by frequent DNA methylation (DNAm) alterations in addition to heritable genetic risk. It is of interest to understand the interrelationship of germline genetics, DNAm, and colorectal cancer risk. Methods: We performed a genome-wide methylation quantitative trait locus (meQTL) analysis in 1,355 people, assessing the pairwise associations between genetic variants and lymphocytes methylation data. In addition, we used penalized regression with cis-genetic variants ± 1 Mb of methylation to identify genome-wide heritable DNAm. We evaluated the association of genetically predicted methylation with colorectal cancer risk based on genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of over 125,000 cases and controls using the multivariate sMiST as well as univariately via examination of marginal association with colorectal cancer risk. Results: Of the 142 known colorectal cancer GWAS loci, 47 were identified as meQTLs. We identified four novel colorectal cancer–associated loci (NID2, ATXN10, KLHDC10, and CEP41) that reside over 1 Mb outside of known colorectal cancer loci and 10 secondary signals within 1 Mb of known loci. Conclusions: Leveraging information of DNAm regulation into genetic association of colorectal cancer risk reveals novel pathways in colorectal cancer tumorigenesis. Our summary statistics-based framework sMiST provides a powerful approach by combining information from the effect through methylation and residual direct effects of the meQTLs on disease risk. Further validation and functional follow-up of these novel pathways are needed. Impact: Using genotype, DNAm, and GWAS, we identified four new colorectal cancer risk loci. We studied the landscape of genetic regulation of DNAm via single-SNP and multi-SNP meQTL analyses.