Citations

Abstract Background and objective: Blood loss associated with total lower-extremity joint arthroplasty (TJA) often results in postoperative anemia and need for red blood cell transfusions (RBCT). We report the results of a quality improvement initiative to improve blood management and decrease transfusions in patients undergoing TJA in one tertiary hospital. Methods: Pre and post analysis after the implementation of a multifaceted intervention which included preoperative assessment for anemia, use of tranexamic acid, discouragement of autologous pre-operative blood collection and institution of more restrictive RBCT protocols. The results were stratified into three periods: I - pre-interventional (01/01/2013 -09/30/2013); II - peri-interventional (10/01/2013 -04/30/2014); and III - post-interventional (05/01/2014 -12/31/2014). We used fractional logistic regression with robust standard errors and regression modeling was configured using a segmented, or "piecewise", approach in which slope coefficients in each period were estimated. Results: During the study period 2511 patients underwent surgery. Compared with the pre-intervention period, the total number of RBC units transfused decreased from a total of 587 in the pre- to 107 in the post-intervention period (81.8% decrease). The percentage of patients receiving transfusion declined from 36.7% in pre-implementation period to 8.8% to post-intervention period. Depending upon the costing methodology used, annualized savings in RBC expenditure between time period 1 and 3 ranged from a low of $108,000 using the acquisition cost per unit (~$225/unit) to $480,000 when using activity based costing (~$1000/unit). Mean length of stay (days) and 30-day readmission rates remained stable during the study period. Conclusions: A multidisciplinary approach with proactive involvement of all the interested parties can be successful and sustainable in reducing RBCT and its associated costs, in patients undergoing TJA. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

BACKGROUND: AL amyloidosis is a rare, progressive, and typically fatal disease caused by both soluble and insoluble (amyloid) forms of misfolded immunoglobulin light chain (LC) proteins, with no approved treatments. Production and tissue deposition of LC aggregates result in various organ system dysfunction (most commonly cardiac and renal), causing significant morbidity and mortality. NEOD001 is an investigational humanized IGg1 designed to directly neutralize soluble toxic aggregates of misfolded LCs and promote phagocytic clearance of amyloid deposits. AIM: To evaluate efficacy and safety of NEOD001 + standard of care (SOC) vs placebo + SOC in patients with AL amyloidosis by assessing time to all-cause mortality (ACM) or cardiac hospitalization (CH). METHODS: This Phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled study randomized 260 newly diagnosed, untreated AL amyloidosis patients (stratified by Mayo stage (Kumar et al., 2012), renal stage, & 6MWD) with cardiac involvement. Patients were randomized 1:1 to 24 mg/kg IV NEOD001 + SOC or placebo + SOC every 28 days. SOC was concomitant chemotherapy with a first line bortezomib-containing regimen. Primary endpoint (PE) was time to ACM or time to centrally adjudicated CH (CH: >90 days after first study drug infusion). Futility analysis based on 103 adjudicated events favored NEOD001 but was not statistically significant (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.57-1.204, p=0.386). The study was terminated early and post hoc analyses were performed. To our knowledge, this study was the first randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 study evaluating an amyloid-targeting agent in AL amyloidosis. RESULTS: Study arms were balanced with regard to demographics and baseline clinical characteristics. The final PE results (intent-to-treat, ITT) were consistent with the futility analysis: HR 0.835, 95% CI 0.5799-1.2011, p=0.330. Favorability of HR for NEOD001 was largely attributable to time to all-cause mortality rather than cardiac hospitalization. Study termination was the primary reason for discontinuation (majority occurring after 12 months). The 12-month study period was defined as modified ITT (mITT). Further mITT analyses by prognostic Mayo staging categories suggest benefit favoring NEOD001 for both PE (HR=0.635) and ACM (HR=0.498) in stage IV patients (n=77), who have highest risk of early mortality. Median overall survival in stage IV (mITT) was 8.3 months for placebo + SOC and was not reached (>12 months) for NEOD001 + SOC. One or more treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were experienced by 257 patients. Of the 88 NEOD001-treated patients with a serious adverse event (SAE), the majority of SAEs (95.5%) were considered not related to study drug. The most common TEAEs (fatigue, nausea, peripheral edema, constipation, and diarrhea) were similar in both arms. Overall safety results were similar within and across Mayo stages. CONCLUSION: After study termination, further calculations supported that the VITAL study as designed would not have achieved statistical significance. No statistically significant differences between NEOD001 + SOC vs. placebo + SOC were observed for the PE. Overall, the incidence, severity, and seriousness of AEs were similar in each arm, suggesting that NEOD001 was generally safe and well tolerated. Post hoc analyses suggest a potential survival benefit of NEOD001 for AL amyloidosis patients with the highest risk of early mortality (Mayo stage IV). This population has historically been the most in need of therapy to improve outcomes, therefore additional clinical studies for NEOD001 are warranted. Disclosures Gertz: Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; Alnylam: Consultancy; Annexon: Consultancy; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Appellis: Consultancy; Prothena Biosciences Inc: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Other: personal fees for Data Safety Monitoring board; Research to Practice: Consultancy; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; i3Health: Other: Development of educational programs and materials; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Teva: Speakers Bureau. Cohen:Poseida Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding. Comenzo:Caelum: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Unum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Myself: Patents & Royalties: Patent 9593332, Pending 20170008966; Sanofi-Aventis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Prothena Biosciences: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Du Mond:Inclin, Inc.: Employment; Prothena: Consultancy. Kastritis:Genesis: Honoraria; Prothena: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria. Landau:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Libby:Alnylam: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics and Janssen: Consultancy; Akcea: Consultancy. Liedtke:Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Research Funding; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celator: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; IQVIA/Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: 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, Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Merlini:University of Pavia: Employment. Sanchorawala:Proclara: Consultancy, Honoraria; Caelum: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Prothena: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Schönland:Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Medac: Other: Travel Grant; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Wechalekar:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Zonder:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Intellia: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kinney:Prothena Biosciences Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties: named inventor on multiple patents and patent applications related to NEOD001.

Background Left ventricular ( LV ) recovery in takotsubo syndrome ( TTS ) occurs over a wide‐ranging interval, varying from hours to weeks. We sought to investigate the clinical predictors and prognostic impact of recovery time for TTS patients. Methods and Results TTS patients from the International Takotsubo Registry were included in this study. Cut‐off for early LV recovery was determined to be 10 days after the acute event. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with the absence of early recovery. In‐hospital outcomes and 1‐year mortality were compared for patients with versus without early recovery. We analyzed 406 patients with comprehensive and serial imaging data regarding time to recovery. Of these, 191 (47.0%) had early LV recovery and 215 (53.0%) demonstrated late LV improvement. Patients without early recovery were more often male (12.6% versus 5.2%; P =0.011) and presented more frequently with typical TTS (76.3% versus 67.0%, P =0.040). Cardiac and inflammatory markers were higher in patients without early recovery than in those with early recovery. Patients without early recovery showed unfavorable 1‐year outcome compared with patients with early recovery ( P =0.003). On multiple logistic regression, male sex, LV ejection fraction <45%, and acute neurologic disorders were associated with the absence of early recovery. Conclusions TTS patients without early LV recovery have different clinical characteristics and less favorable 1‐year outcome compared with patients with early recovery. The factors associated with the absence of early recovery included male sex, reduced LV ejection fraction, and acute neurologic events. Clinical Trial Registration URL : http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT 01947621.

Background and Objectives: The aim of the study was to determine the association between presences of fatty pancreas (FP) with the features of metabolic syndrome (MeS) in patients with non–alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and to establish a new noninvasive scoring system for the prediction of FP in patients with NAFLD. Material and Methods: 143 patients with NAFLD were classified according to FP severity grade into the two groups and evaluated for diagnostic criteria of MeS. All patients underwent sonographic examination with adiposity measurements and the liver biopsy. Liver fibrosis was evaluated semi-quantitatively according to the METAVIR scoring system and using non-invasive markers of hepatic fibrosis. Results: Waist circumference (WC) was predictive for increased risk of FP in NAFLD patients. Elevated fasting plasma glucose, total cholesterol, serum amylase and lipase levels were associated with presence of severe FP (p value = 0.052, p value = 0.007, p value = 0.014; p value = 0.024, respectively). Presence of increased amounts of mesenteric fat was associated with severe FP (p value = 0.013). The results of this study demonstrated highly significant association between NAFLD and presence of FP. The model for predicting the presence of FP was designed with probability value above 6.5. Conclusion: Pancreatic fat accumulation leads to worsening of pancreatic function which in turns exacerbates severity of metabolic syndrome associated with both, NAFLD and NAFPD.

Abstract Background: It has been known for approximately 19 years that germline mutations in RUNX1, lead to familial platelet disorder with predisposition to myeloid malignancy (FPD-MM, OMIM 601399). Since that time researchers have identified a broad range of different RUNX1 mutations, in over 100 families. In large families, the diagnosis of malignancy shows variable penetrance among family members with the same mutation; some carriers of RUNX1 mutations do not develop malignancy. The causes of this heterogeneity are currently not known, complicating counselling and risk analysis for individual carriers. Recent advances in genetic sequencing technology applied by many FPD-MM research groups around the world have highlighted their value in understanding the somatic genetic changes that are associated with development of malignancies in germline RUNX1 mutation carriers. Collectively this information could lead to powerful insights essential for more precise risk assessment, monitoring, and therapeutic intervention. Specifically, a growing catalogue of somatic mutations associated with germline RUNX1 malignancy offers the opportunity for informed monitoring of asymptomatic RUNX1 carriers for additional high-risk somatic mutations, in turn providing the possibility for early therapeutic intervention to arrest the leukemic process. The challenge in advancing these goals for FPD-MM is the relative rarity of the disorder in individual populations. Global data sharing in a highly interactive FPD-MM research community offers a solution to this problem that benefits all patients world-wide. Aims: To create a global RUNX1 network through identifying and contacting researchers and clinicians with known and novel germline RUNX1 families, seeking their collaboration to share genomics data. To create a RUNX1.db portal to collectively house and analyse genomics data from germline RUNX1 carriers, with associated phenotype and clinical information, such that researchers have an ongoing means by which to combine their data with those generated by other groups around the world. Methods: RUNX1 network : Through existing collaborative networks, a systematic review of the literature, and referrals from initial contacts, we have identified a global network of researchers managing FPD-MM cases and families. RUNX1.db: We have adapted a custom-built variant analysis platform, VariantGrid, that is a visual web application and database designed to help scientists manage and analyse DNA variants that can be used to aggregate and analyse multiple datasets. Results: Preliminary analysis of aggregated data from the literature suggests there are features of germline RUNX1 syndrome that can be ascertained. These include frequent somatic mutation of RUNX1 in malignancy development, as well as mutations in genes associated with clonal hematopoiesis that may precede development of overt leukemia. This analysis also suggests that different types of germline RUNX1 mutations may be associated with different combinations of somatic mutations in the tumour. To further this analysis, we have identified over 70 groups internationally that either manage RUNX1 families or have identified potential germline carriers through genomics initiatives. This represents a large and growing resource for both scientific studies and clinical programs to benefit individuals with FPD-MM. Many of these groups have generated NGS data sets from patient samples which will be available for analysis through this portal. Further details and activities of the network, and results from the genomics aggregation database will be presented. Conclusion: We have created a global RUNX1 network, aggregated their data, and generated a RUNX1.db genomics portal for the continuous curation of genomics data from germline RUNX1 carriers. A preliminary analysis has already identified specific features of germline RUNX1 mutated malignancies that have clinical importance. Ongoing scientific and clinical studies through the RUNX1 network will enhance the power of aggregated data analysis, with RUNX1.db providing a central link, driving new insights that benefit patients. Disclosures Natsoulis: Imago BioSciences, Inc.: Consultancy, Equity Ownership. Guzman:Cellectis: Research Funding. DiNardo:Bayer: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Agios: Consultancy; Medimmune: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Borate:Novartis: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy. Wei:Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Dokal:MRC, Bloodwise, Telomerase Activator Sciences: Research Funding; The Gary Woodward Dyskeratosis Congenita Trust: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Action Medical Research, European School of Haematology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London,: Employment, Research Funding; Telomerase Activator Sciences: Research Funding; Barts and The London, Queen Mary University of London: Employment; Gary Woodward Dyskeratois Congenita Trust: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hiwase:Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Branford:Cepheid: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Qiagen: 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, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kramer:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy. Owen:Merck: Honoraria; Teva: Honoraria; AbbVie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Research Funding. Fitzgibbon:Epizyme: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy. Rienhoff:Imago BioSciences, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kurokawa:Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma: Research Funding; Nippon Sinyaku: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Honoraria, Research Funding; Eizai: Research Funding; MSD: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ono Pharmaceutical: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Otsuka Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Teijin Pharma: Research Funding; Chugai Pharmaceutical: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Bendamustine and rituximab (BR) is a commonly chosen frontline treatment for grade 1-2 (G 1-2) follicular lymphoma (FL). This regimen resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) and less toxicity compared to R-CHOP in the STiL trial [Rummel et al., 2013] and similar results were observed when comparing BR vs. R-CHOP/R-CVP in the confirmatory BRIGHT trial [Flinn et al., 2014, updated ASCO 2017]. Importantly, patients (pts) with grade 3A (G 3A) FL were excluded from these studies, yet the conclusions are often extrapolated to the treatment of G 3A pts. Notably, G 3A pts were included in the GALLIUM trial which used both bendamustine as well as CHOP backbones. Several retrospective studies of FL pts treated with frontline R-CHOP have demonstrated equivalent or improved overall survival (OS) for G 3A relative to G 1-2 FL (Koch et al., 2016, Mustafa et al., 2017, Yuan et al., 2017, Maeshima et al., 2013). Early disease progression after diagnosis and treatment with frontline R-CHOP has been identified as a strong predictor of poor OS in FL pts [Casulo et al. 2015], but has not been assessed in pts treated with frontline BR. We retrospectively evaluated outcomes of a large cohort of FL pts treated with frontline BR and stratified the results based on histologic grade and early vs. late progression. Methods: We reviewed medical records of adult (age >18) pts with FL treated with frontline BR at 18 US cancer centers. There was no central pathology review; each academic institution confirmed the diagnosis and grade of FL. Pts with unknown grade, grade 3B, or cutaneous FL were excluded. Baseline characteristics between grades were evaluated with the Chi-Square test for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U for continuous variables. Outcomes were calculated from time of initiation of BR. Patients were grouped according to whether or not they had progression of disease within 24 months of BR initiation (POD24). OS and PFS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Results: 687 pts were included (616 G 1-2, 71 G 3A). Median age at diagnosis was 60 years (range 21-94) with 53% men. The median time from diagnosis to treatment with BR was 1 month (range 0-139). The median duration of follow up for the entire cohort was 39 months. Characteristics including age, gender, ethnicity, ECOG, stage, LDH, and FLIPI are shown in the Table, and did not significantly differ between G 1-2 and G 3A pts. Rates of complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) to BR were similar between G 1-2 and G 3A (72%/22% vs. 66%/21%, respectively, p=0.114) but progressive disease (PD) was higher in G 3A pts (11.9%) relative to G 1-2 (4.8%, p=0.025). As shown in the Figure (A and B), 3-year PFS and OS was significantly longer for G 1-2 vs. G 3A pts (75% vs. 65%, log rank p= 0.035 and 90% vs. 86%, log rank p=0.007, respectively). Seventy-six (12.3%) of the 616 G 1-2 pts and 13 (18.3%) of the 71 G 3A pts experienced POD24 (p=0.19). For pts with both G 1-2 and G 3A FL, POD24 was associated with inferior OS (3-year OS 95% vs. 57% for G 1-2 pts, log rank p<0.0001 and 3-year OS 93% vs. 37% for G 3A pts, log rank p<0.0001) compared to patients without POD24. Conclusions: G 3A FL pts have an inferior OS and are significantly more likely to have PD to frontline BR compared to G 1-2, which differs from the published experience with R-CHOP. Similar to outcomes after frontline treatment with R-CHOP, POD24 after frontline BR for FL is associated with very poor OS. Future studies are needed to address optimal frontline management of pts with G3A as well as for pts with any grade FL with POD24 after frontline BR. Disclosures Nastoupil: Novartis: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therappeutics: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno: Honoraria. Cerhan:Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Maurer:Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding. Smith:Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Lossos:Affimed: Research Funding. Portell:TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Kite: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding. Calzada:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Cohen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy. Ghosh:Spectrum: Consultancy; SGN: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics, an Abbvie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; PCYC: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Forty seven Inc: Research Funding. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck, Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Bayer: Research Funding. Caimi:Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board Participation; Genentech: Other: Advisory Board PArticipation, Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board Participation. Danilov:Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding. Martin:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Kamdar:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy. Kahl:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Hill:Abbvie: 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; 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; 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; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: 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; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background: Checkpoint blockade therapies (CBT) have substantially improved outcomes for patients in a variety of cancers. However, they are associated with a unique spectrum of immune-related adverse events (AEs). Additionally, unlike standard chemotherapy, many patients (pts) remain on CBT for prolonged periods of time, thus immune-related symptomatic AEs may be chronic or low grade therefore important to capture long term tolerability when used as a single agent or in combination with chemotherapy. In this study, we applied the Toxicity over Time (ToxT) analytic approach (Thanarajasingam et al, Lancet Oncol 2016), which incorporates the dimension of time and includes chronic lower grade events, to the first 6 cohorts (A-F) of a Phase 1/2 ECOG-ACRIN sponsored study of the combinations of Brentuximab Vedotin (BV) and the CBT therapies ipilimumab (Ipi) and nivolumab (Nivo) in pts with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R HL). Methods: Pts with confirmed R/R HL were treated with BV 1.8mg/kg + Ipi 1or 3 mg/kg (n=23); or Nivo 3mg/kg + BV: 1.2 or 1.8 mg/kg (n=19). BV was administered every 21 days for 16 cycles; Ipi every 21 days x 4 and then every 3 months for one year and Nivo every 21 days for up to 2 years. Seven symptomatic (subjective) AEs were selected: fatigue, peripheral sensory neuropathy (PSN), nausea/vomiting (NV), rash/skin (RS), diarrhea, ocular-all types, and hair loss. Treatment-related AEs of any grade were investigated by conventional maximum grade toxicity analysis (ToxC) and ToxT methods up to 12 cycles. Using ToxT, mean AE grades over cycles were analyzed for time trend with repeated measures models, time to grade 2 or higher AE (gr2+) was analyzed with time-to-event analysis; AE profile over the entire course of the study was summarized by area under the curve (AUC) analyses. Comparisons were performed between treatment groups: BV/Ipi(A-C arms) and BV/Nivo (D-F arms). Results: 9/23 (BV/Ipi) and 6/19 (BV/Nivo) pts completed 10 cycles. For BV/Ipi vs. BV/nivo, ToxC provides overall incidence rates (any grade): fatigue 52% vs 26% (p=0.09); PSN 61% vs 53%; NV 70% vs 53% ; RS 65% vs. 37% (p=0.07); diarrhea 57% vs. 21% (p=0.02); ocular 17% vs. 21% ; and hair loss 17% vs. 0% (p=0.06), respectively. Gr3 AE occurred in 1 pt (2.4%) each for PSN, NV, diarrhea, and 6 pts (14.3%) for RS, and were similar between BV/ipi and BV/nivo. AUC from ToxT which captures chronic lower grade AEs suggested for BV/Ipi: diarrhea (p=0.02) and NV (p=0.03) are significantly more substantial over time with a trend seen for fatigue (p=0.07), RS (p=0.07) and hair loss (p=0.07) . Additionally, ToxT captures the trajectory of AEs, demonstrated a rising incidence and worsening grade of PSN (BV-related) on BV/Ipi (c1: 9% gr1, c2: 21% gr1 5% gr2, c5: 11% gr1 and c10: 22% gr2 [p=0.005], Fig 1a). In contrast there was a slow but significant decreasing incidence of NV on both combinations; for BV/Nivo (c1:52% gr1, c5: 26% gr1 and c10: 22% gr1) and BV/Ipi (c1: 47% gr1 ,c5: 0% and c10 1% gr1) with p=0.006 (Fig 1b). RS and diarrhea appear early on treatment and are not cumulative (Fig1c and 1d). There is no significant difference in the time to gr 2+ toxicities in any of the 7 AE. Combining all 7 AEs and using the maximum grade as a pilot measure of overall AE burden , ToxC indicates no difference in any grade (100% vs 100%) but a significantly higher gr 3+ incidence (35% vs. 11%) for BV/Ipi. Additionally, ToxT further elucidates that BV/Ipi is associated with significantly higher overall AE over time (Fig 2a, p=0.02) and compared to BV/Nivo a significantly higher risk of developing gr 2+ toxicity ( 57% vs 16% gr2 + event by day 50) (HR=0.41, p=0.02, Fig 2b). Conclusions: The CBT therapies Ipi and Nivo, in combination with BV, are overall both well tolerated over time, although BV/Ipi has a higher overall AE burden. Neither regimen has significant cumulative immune toxicity. Results of this analysis should be interpreted in the context of limited number of pts in both cohorts. A larger scale examination of this analysis is planned to incorporate both phase 1 and the ongoing phase 2 components of E4412. Compared with conventional tox analysis, ToxT delineated important additional and clinically relevant depictions of AEs over time and adds a more comprehensive assessment of the tolerability of chronically administered immune therapies for lymphoma. Disclosures Hong: Merck: Consultancy. Ansell:Regeneron: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding. Cohen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Advani:Kura: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Autolus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Kyowa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Millenium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity: Research Funding; Forty Seven Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck, Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Bayer: Research Funding. Svoboda:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy. Karmali:AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Witzig:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dueck:Bayer: Employment; Phytogine: Employment; Pfizer: Honoraria. Kahl:Genentech: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Diefenbach:Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Denovo: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Relapsed/refractory (R/R) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) remains a significant clinical challenge. We hypothesized that using immune checkpoint blockade to activate the immune cells in the tumor microenvironment, and concurrently targeting tumor cells with the CD30 targeting antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin (BV) could overcome tumor resistance. E4412 is a Phase 1/2 ECOG-ACRIN sponsored study of the combinations of BV, nivolumab (Nivo), and ipilimumab (Ipi) in patients with R/R HL. Here we present the preliminary safety and response data on the full cohort of patients treated in Phase 1 with BV + Ipi + Nivo (Arms G-I). Methods: Patients with confirmed R/R HL were treated with Nivo 3mg/kg, Ipi 1mg/kg and BV 1.2mg/kg (Arm G) or 1.8mg/kg (Arm H) with a 3+3 design, and an expansion cohort (Arm I) of 9 patients with BV at 1.8mg/kg. BV and Nivo are given every 21 days for 16 cycles; Nivo may be continued for an additional 12 months. Ipi is given every 12 weeks except for the first 2 patients in Arm G who received Ipi every 6 weeks for the first 3 cycles. Dose limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined within the first cycle of therapy. Results: As of 6/30/18 22 patients with a median of 2 prior therapies (range 1-5) have been treated; 7 in Arm G, 6 in Arm H, and 9 in Arm I. Median age was 35, range (19-60); 11 patients were male. Nine patients had prior SCT (1 alloSCT, 8 autoSCT); 1 patient had prior BV. Safety: All 22 enrolled patients are evaluable for safety. There were 3 DLTs, one in each arm. In Arm G one patient experienced grade 4 diabetic ketoacidosis and hyperglycemia, and went off treatment after cycle 1. In Arm H, one patient had transient grade 3 AST elevation; this was of no clinical significance and did not require a delay in therapy. In Arm I a post AlloSCT patient had grade 4 Steven-Johnson syndrome with grade 3 pruritis, rash, and GVHD, and came off therapy. Common toxicities considered at least possibly related to drug, are shown in Table 1, and grade 3 or greater toxicity in Table 2. There were no grade 5 AEs or additional grade 4 AEs. Significant grade 3 AEs were: rash, colitis, gastritis, pancreatitis, and arthritis each in one patient, resulting in dose delays but not discontinuation of therapy. One patient experienced grade 2 angioedema in cycle 1 and came off therapy. No significant infusion reactions were noted. Response: Nineteen of 22 patients are evaluable for response. Three patients discontinued treatment after cycle 1 and are not evaluable for response. For the full population the overall response rate (ORR) was 82% (18/22), with a complete response (CR) rate of 68% (15/22). For patients treated with at least 3 cycles of therapy who were evaluable for response, the ORR is 95% (18/19) with a CR rate of 79% (15/19). Six patients went from treatment to SCT. With a median follow-up of 0.52 years median progression free survival (PFS) has not been reached (Figure 1), and with a median follow-up of 0.82 years overall survival (OS) has not been reached (Figure 2). Conclusion: In this study of the triplet combination of BV, Ipi and Nivo for R/R HL, therapy was generally well tolerated, although more grade 3 AEs were seen than in the doublets. In a heavily pretreated patient population, with 9 patients post SCT, the ORR of 95% and CR rate of 79% in evaluable patients is extremely promising. Data will be updated to include longer term PFS and OS by the time of the meeting. Optimization of this strategy is ongoing in E4412, now a randomized phase 2 study comparing the doublet of BV-Nivo to the triplet of BV-Ipi-Nivo. Disclosures Diefenbach: Trillium: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hong:Merck: Consultancy. Cohen:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Advani:Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Autolus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cell Medica: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Gilead/Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Kyowa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Forty Seven: Research Funding. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck, Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Bayer: Research Funding. Svoboda:Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy. Karmali:AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Kahl:Genentech: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Ansell:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction The International Prognostic Index (IPI) and the age-adjusted IPI (aaIPI) are the most commonly used tools to predict outcomes in patients with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL). The IPI does not take into account sex or race. In the pre-rituximab era, sex was found to be a strong predictor of poor prognosis in low-grade lymphomas. While there is emerging evidence that female sex is associated with better survival in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treated with R-CHOP, much less is known about the prognostic impact of race. We retrospectively assessed the impact of sex and race on overall survival in patients with indolent and aggressive NHL treated at any stage with rituximab at our institution. Methods We retrospectively identified all patients >/=18 years who were diagnosed with B-cell NHL (except SLL/CLL and Burkitt lymphoma) between 1/1/2000 and 12/31/2010 and received rituximab at any stage as part of their therapy at the Montefiore Medical Center. We collected data on histology, age (<60 vs. >/=60), date of diagnosis, date and status at last follow-up, and stage from the MECCC Cancer registry, and we obtained data on the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) from Clinical Looking Glass® (CLG), an interactive software application developed at Montefiore Medical Center which integrates clinical and administrative datasets. The histological subtypes DLBCL and grade 3 follicular lymphoma (FL) were classified as “high-grade lymphoma” (HGL), while other types of lymphoma were termed “low-grade lymphoma” (LGL; these included marginal zone lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, grade 1 & 2 FL, and malignant lymphoma NOS). Self-reported race was classified as White, Black, Hispanic or “Other”. Only <2% of the patients were of “Other” racial background and therefore excluded from this analysis. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) calculated as time from diagnosis to time of death. We used the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method to describe OS for race and sex and the log-rank test to test for significance (p<0.05). We used a Cox proportional hazard (CPH) model to assess the association of variables with OS. Except for age, race and sex, variables that were not significantly associated with OS (i.e. p-value>0.10 in the multivariate model) were excluded from the final model (backward elimination). Results 353 patients were included in the analysis. Median follow-up for all patients was 37.3 months (range 0.03-202.40). Baseline characteristics between male and females were similar with the exception of age at diagnosis and histology (see Table 1). On univariate analysis there was no OS difference between male and female patients (p=0.13), while race was associated with significant differences in OS (p=0.04; see Fig. 1). In the multivariate model, only stage >/=3 was associated with worse survival (Hazard Ratio [HR] 2.78, 95% CI 1.62-4.77; p<0.0001), but there was no significant association with OS for type of lymphoma (HGL vs. LGL) or the CCI (low vs. high score) and these 2 variables were therefore eliminated from the final multivariate model. In the final multivariate model, female sex was associated with a 37% reduction in the risk of death (HR 0.63; 95%CI 0.40-0.98; p=0.04), while race was no longer associated with OS (Hispanic vs. White: HR 0.76, 95%CI 0.41-1.40, p=0.38; Black vs. White: HR 0.66, 95%CI 0.40-1.10; p=0.11; Black vs. Hispanic: HR 1.15; 95% CI 0.63-2.08, p=0.65). Conclusions Female patients treated at any stage with rituximab for high-grade and low-grade B-cell NHL at our institution experienced longer OS. However, we observed no racial disparity in survival in our analysis. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.