Citations

Abstract Introduction: Multiple gene expression profile assays have successfully prognosticated the overall survival (OS) outcomes of patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (NDMM) and are now available for use in clinical practice. The genes included in these profiles encompass several aspects of cancer biology broadly such as cell-cycle biology, energy metabolism, migration, adhesion, immune evasion etc. Since altered energy metabolism is one of the hallmarks of all cancer cells, our goal was to take a deep-dive into specific genes associated with intracellular central carbon energy metabolism (CCEM) pathways such as oxidative phosphorylation (OxPhos) as well as glycolysis and lactate fermentation (Glyco-Lac) in MM cells to determine their impact on the pathogenesis and prognosis of MM patients. Methods: Gene expression level data via RNA sequencing from the COMMPASS dataset (made available by the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation (MMRF)) was utilized. The expression levels of all genes associated with the OxPhos (N = 118) and Glyco-Lac (N = 34) pathways were evaluated in CD138+ cells derived from patients with NDMM. Each gene was dichotomized into low and high expression groups -based on their expression level above and below the median fragments per kilobase of transcript per million (FPKM), respectively. The prognostic significance of dichotomizing each of the 152 genes in this NDMM cohort was evaluated by levels of their hazard ratios (HRs) for OS determined by the log-rank method. Genes from the OxPhos and Glyco-Lac pathways were selected based on their significant negative impact on OS, wide representation of their biologic activity throughout the pathway and high independence from each other. This resulted in the selection of 12 distinct genes of interest. A scoring system consisting of assigning a point for every gene where their FPKM was above the median yielded a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 12 for the set of genes in the OxPhos and Glyco-Lac pathways to create an energy metabolism score (EMS). Patients were then categorized into "low" (0-8) or "high" (9-12) EMS groups. In addition, patients were designated as having high-risk cytogenetics if they had any of the following: t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), del17p, and Amp 1q. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and compared via the log-rank method. Finally, the distribution of the EMS score among patients within a spectrum of plasma cell disorders such as, monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), smoldering multiple myeloma and MM as well as normal plasma cells was assessed using a previously published transcriptome dataset (GSE6477). Results: A total of 766 patients were included in this study. The selected genes included in this scoring system and their biological relevance in the OxPhos and Glyco-Lac pathways are depicted in Figure A. The distribution of low and high EMS groups across ISS stage and cytogenetic risk are depicted in Figure B and C respectively. The median OS (mOS) and PFS for the high (N = 248) vs. low (N = 518) EMS groups was 55 vs. 94 months (HR: 2.41; (95%CI: 1.85-3.14); P <0.0001) (Figure D) and 24 vs. 42 months (HR: 1.74; (95%CI: 1.42-2.13); P <0.0001). Patients with ISS 2 stage disease categorized as having a high or low EMS score had a similar mOS to patients with ISS 3 and ISS 1 stage disease respectively (Figure E). Similarly, the mOS was similar among patients with standard risk and high-risk cytogenetics when categorized by low and high EMS (Figure F). Finally, the relative expression of most of the 12 select CCEM genes (Figure G) and the probability of a high EMS score increased among patients along the spectrum of plasma cell disorders (Normal plasma cell -> MGUS -> SMM -> MM) (Figure H). Conclusions: The expression levels of specific genes associated with the activity of intracellular CCEM pathways such as glycolysis, lactate fermentation and oxidative phosphorylation in plasma cells provides evidence for the impact of cellular energy metabolism on the pathogenesis and survival outcomes of MM. This provides an opportunity for developing future studies aimed at understanding the energy metabolism pathways of plasma cell malignancies in greater detail so as to exploit them for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes in MM. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kumar: Novartis: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Carsgen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Dispenzieri: Alnylam: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kapoor: AbbVie: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Dingli: Apellis: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy. Lin: Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Vineti: Consultancy. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy. Fonseca: Aduro: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Caris Life Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Patent: Prognosticaton of myeloma via FISH: Patents & Royalties; AbbVie: Consultancy; Scientific Advisory Board: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; OncoTracker: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mayo Clinic in Arizona: Current Employment; Amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy.

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Luxeptinib (CG-806) is a potent, non-covalent oral inhibitor of BTK and FLT3. It suppresses BCR signaling pathways (LYN, SYK, BTK, AKT, ERK) and other oncogenic pathways in cell lines and primary CLL cells, kills malignant B-cells insensitive to ibrutinib or venetoclax at low nM concentrations, and shows enhanced activity in combination with venetoclax. Luxeptinib is currently being evaluated in a Phase 1a/b trial in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell malignancies (NCT03893682). AIMS: Primary objectives are to assess the safety and tolerability of luxeptinib and determine the recommended expansion dose for future clinical trials in patients with R/R CLL/SLL or B-NHL. Key secondary objectives include elucidation of the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) characteristics, and evidence of antitumor activity. METHODS: Luxeptinib is administered continuously as oral capsules BID in 28-day cycles, in ascending cohorts of 3 patients. Treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and tumor responses are evaluated per disease specific guidelines. RESULTS: As of June 7, 2021, a total of 23 patients (median age 64.0 years, 11 CLL/SLL, 4 follicular lymphoma (FL), 1 Richter's transformation lymphoma, 2 Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia (WM), 2 mantle cell lymphoma, 3 diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL)) with a median of 3 prior systemic regimens (range of 1 - 12) have been treated with luxeptinib at doses of 150 mg (n=1), 300 mg (n=1), 450 mg (n=9), 600 mg (n=4) and 750 mg (n=8). Drug related grade ≥ 3 TEAEs included neutropenia (n=5, 21.7%), leukocytosis (n=2, 8.7%), decreased white blood cell count, decreased platelet count, anemia, increased alanine aminotransferase, diarrhea, hypertension, and headache (n=1, 4.3 % each). One patient, who experienced progressive hypertension before receiving luxeptinib, developed grade 1 hypertension during screening evolving to grade 2 prior to dosing on C1D1, experienced grade 4 hypertension after luxeptinib treatment at 750 mg BID for 5 days. While this was considered a DLT per protocol, luxeptinib plasma levels in this patient were lower than those observed in patients at this and lower dose levels, and no drug-related hypertension has been observed in any other patient treated to date. The average steady-state (C min) plasma levels of luxeptinib in patients treated with 750 mg BID were > 1µM and were sustained over multiple cycles. PD analysis demonstrated that C min of luxeptinib in the plasma of patients treated with doses of 300 mg or higher significantly reduced levels of phosphorylated BTK, SYK, ERK and FLT3 in EOL-1 reporter cells in a plasma inhibitor activity assay, demonstrating multi-target engagement. Response evaluations were available for 12 patients who had at least one imaging study or IgM measurements (WM patients) after starting treatment. Eight out of these 12 patients had various reductions of lesion size or IgM measurements compared to baseline (3 SLL, 2 FL, 1 CLL, 1 WM and 1 DLBCL), demonstrating anti-tumor activity. FDG PET-CT scans in one FL patient, who had 2 prior regimens, revealed lesion growth during treatment with luxeptinib at 450 mg BID for 7 cycles. After dose-escalation to 600 mg BID in Cycle 8, lesion measurements demonstrated continuous reduction. By C15D1, target lesions decreased by 42.5% and 11.3% when compared with peak tumor size and baseline measurements, respectively. One WM patient in Cohort 5 (750 mg BID), who had 2 prior regimens including ibrutinib, has had a 24.9% reduction in IgM level by C3D1 compared with baseline as her best response so far. CONCLUSIONS: Luxeptinib has a favorable safety profile in patients treated with 150 mg to 600 mg BID over multiple cycles. A single apparent DLT (grade 4 hypertension in one patient with pre-existing hypertension) led to expansion of the 750 mg dose level to 6 patients. Pharmacodynamic studies documented inhibition of SYK, BTK and ERK in the BCR signaling pathway. Anti-tumor activity was observed in multiple B-NHL subtypes and CLL/SLL patients. Enrollment of patients with R/R CLL/SLL and B-NHL at dose level 5 (750 mg) is ongoing and updated clinical data will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Samaniego: Arog: Research Funding; Imbrium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Burke: AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; SeaGen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; X4 Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy. Mahadevan: caris: Speakers Bureau; Guardanthealt: Speakers Bureau; PFIZER: Other: Clinical trial Adverse events committee; TG Therapeuticals: Other: Clinical trial Adverse events committee. Cherry: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sadiq: Dava Oncology: Honoraria. Reid: ADC Therapeutics: Other: Serves as Principle Investigator, Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Other: Serves as Principle Investigator, Research Funding; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Other: Serves as Principle Investigator, Research Funding; Xencor: Other: Serves as Principle Investigator, Research Funding. Roeker: TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, LOXO, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics, Vaniam Group, Verastem: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Abbot Laboratories: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Melear: Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Zhang: Aptose Biosciences, Inc.: Current Employment. Rastgoo: Aptose Biosciences, Inc.: Current Employment. Benbatoul: Aptose Biosciences, Inc.: Current Employment. Haney: Aptose Biosciences, Inc.: Current Employment. Jin: Aptose Biosciences, Inc.: Current Employment. Marango: Aptose Biosciences, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Howell: Aptose Biosciences, Inc.: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Rice: Oncolytics Biotech Inc.: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aptose Biosciences, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Patents & Royalties. Bejar: Astex: Consultancy; Silence Therapeutics: Consultancy; Aptose Biosciences, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract The tumor microenvironment plays a crucial role in mediating the tumor immune response, thereby affecting patient outcomes in follicular lymphoma (FL). Using CyTOF, we analyzed single cell suspensions created from pre-treatment biopsies in a cohort of 82 FL patients and retrospectively extracted patient clinical parameters. Hierarchical analysis of the tumor microenvironment composition stratified these patients into 4 groups: group 1 represents patients with high percentage of monocyte/macrophages/NK cells; patients from group 2 and 3 are rich of intratumoral T and B cells, respectively. Patients with intermediate number of T and B cells are classed into group 4. Intratumoral T cells from these 4 groups exhibited distinct phenotypical characteristics. Group 1 was enriched with KLRG1 +CD8 + T cells, while group 4 showed increased number of CXCR3 - T EM and CD4 + T N cells. Patients from group 2 and 3 featured with increased number of ICOS + T reg cells and CD57 + T FH cells, respectively. We observed that higher numbers of T cells significantly correlated with early disease stage, lack of B-symptoms, event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24) and a favorable overall and EFS survival in patients with histological grade 1 and 2. However, this association was not seen in patients with histological grade 3a and b, suggesting that T cell-mediated anti-tumor immunity is preserved in low grade patients, but overridden in higher grade patients. CITRUS analysis revealed that a cluster that is CD57 + and PD-1 high was significantly more abundant in patients who had disease progression than patients who had a complete response to therapy, suggesting a role of CD57 + T FH cells in promoting malignant cell growth in FL. Consistent with this finding, we observed that higher number of CD57 + T FH cells correlated with an inferior survival in FL. Using CITE-seq technology, we found that CD57 + T FH cells exhibited a substantially different transcriptome when compared to CD57 - T FH cells. Genes that were differentially upregulated in CD57 + T FH cells when compared to CD57 - T FH cells included genes involved in cell survival, compromised inflammatory response, and metabolism activation including GZMK, CCL4, CST7, DUSP2, LGALS3, CYTOR, CHI3L2, SYNE2, CXCL13, CD27 and FABP5. Taken together, our results indicate different tumor microenvironments among FL patient groups that is associated with variable T-cell phenotype. We found that CD57 + T FH cells play an important role in predicting disease progression and patient prognosis in FL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Novak: Celgene/BMS: Research Funding. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Light chain (AL) amyloidosis is a plasma cell disease characterized by the deposition of insoluble amyloid fibrils into organs leading to organ dysfunction and death. The analysis at 6 and 12 months of the ANDROMEDA study (NCT03201965) showed that the addition of subcutaneous (SC) daratumumab to the standard of care combination of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (VCd) was superior to VCd alone, with higher rates of hematologic complete response (CR) and an acceptable safety profile. Based on these findings daratumumab with VCd (D-VCd) was approved for newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis in January 2021 in the US and June 2021 in the EU. Here, we present data from the analysis at 18 months of the ANDROMEDA study. Methods: ANDROMEDA is a randomized, open-label, active-controlled phase 3 study including patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis with measurable hematologic disease, ≥1 involved organ, cardiac stage I-IIIA, estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥20 mL/min, and absence of symptomatic multiple myeloma. Patients were randomized (1:1) to D-VCd or VCd for 6 28-day cycles. Bortezomib (1.3 mg/m 2), cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m 2 up to 500 mg per week), and dexamethasone (20-40 mg) were administered weekly. SC daratumumab (1800 mg co-formulated with recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 in 15 mL) was administered once weekly in cycles 1 and 2 and every 2 weeks in cycles 3 to 6. Patients in the D-VCd arm received only SC daratumumab after cycle 6, every 4 weeks (up to a total of 24 cycles from first dose). The primary endpoint was overall (ie, at any time) hematologic CR rate, defined here as normalization of free light chain (FLC) levels and ratio (FLCr) and negative serum and urine immunofixation, confirmed at a subsequent visit; normalization of uninvolved FLC level and FLCr were not required if involved FLC was lower than the upper limit of normal. Secondary endpoints included major organ deterioration progression-free survival (PFS), organ response rate, time to hematologic response, overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: A total of 388 patients were randomized to receive D-VCd (N=195) or VCd alone (N=193). At the May 2021 clinical cutoff, the median duration of treatment for D-VCd and VCd arms was 21.3 and 5.3 months, respectively. In the D-VCd arm, 149 patients (77.2%) received daratumumab monotherapy after completing 6 cycles of D-VCd; of those, 17 (11.4%) were still receiving treatment. The rates of deep hematological responses favored the D-VCd treatment arm (Table). At a median follow-up of 25.8 months, the rate of hematologic CR was significantly higher in the D-VCd arm vs the VCd arm (59.5% vs 19.2%; odds ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)], 6.03 [3.80-9.58]; P<0.0001). Similarly, more patients achieved a very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) (D-VCd vs VCd, 79.0% vs 50.3%; odds ratio [95% CI], 3.74 [2.39-5.86]; P<0.0001). Among patients who responded, the median time from randomization to ≥VGPR was shorter in the D-VCd arm (0.56 months) vs the VCd arm (0.82 months). Comparable to the cardiac response analysis at 6 months (D-VCd vs VCd, 42% vs 22%), greater cardiac response rates were achieved with D-VCd compared with VCd at 18 months (53% vs 24%). Similarly, renal response rates remained superior with D-VCd vs VCd alone at 18 months (58% vs 26% compared with 6 months [54% vs 27%]). A total of 79 deaths occurred (D-VCd, N=34; VCd, N=45). In the D-VCd arm, only 1 additional grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event occurred over 18 months vs 12 months (119 [61.7%] vs 118 [61.1%] patients) and no additional infusion-related reactions were reported. OS will be analyzed and major organ deterioration PFS will be updated after approximately 200 events have occurred. Conclusions: These results demonstrate the sustained clinical benefits of D-VCd vs VCd in terms of hematologic and organ responses with longer follow-up, although it should be noted that many patients in the D-VCd arm received daratumumab monotherapy following 6 cycles of D-VCd, while patients in the VCd group stopped study treatment. Nevertheless, the study continues to support the use of D-VCd over VCd alone in patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis. Following its recent approval, D-VCd represents a new SOC for patients with AL amyloidosis. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Comenzo: Prothena Biosciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Unum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Caelum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi-Aventis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Patents & Royalties: WO2016187546A1, Research Funding. Palladini: Pfizer: Honoraria; Siemens: Honoraria; Janssen Global Services: Honoraria, Other: advisory board fees. Kastritis: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis Pharma: Honoraria. Minnema: Janssen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Other: Travel expenses; Alnylam: Consultancy; Cilag: Consultancy. Wechalekar: Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Caelum Biosciences: Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Consultancy. Jaccard: Pfizer: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dispenzieri: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Lee: Karyopharm: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Legend Biotech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopetides: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding. Sanchorawala: Oncopeptide: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sorrento: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Gibbs: AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Takeda, BMS and Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mollee: Janssen, Pfizer: Research Funding; Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Caelum, EUSA, Pfizer, SkylineDx, Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: No personal fees received. Venner: BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Schönland: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Prothena: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Sanofi: Research Funding. Suzuki: Abie: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; ONO: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kim: BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Cibeira: Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Akcea: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Beksac: Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Libby: Genentech: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Valent: Caelum Biosciences: Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Celgene Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau. Hungria: Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Support for attending meetings/travel ; Abbvie: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: Support for attending meetings/travel ; Takeda: Honoraria. Wong: Amgen: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Fortis: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; GloxoSmithKlein: Research Funding; Dren Biosciences: Consultancy; Caelum: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosenzweig: Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Akcea: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Onocopeptides: Speakers Bureau. Bumma: Amgen, Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Janssen, Oncopeptides, Sanofi: Consultancy. Tran: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Qin: Janssen: Current Employment. Khaled: Jazz: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Alexion: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Omeros: Honoraria; Janssen: Current Employment. Vermeulen: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.

Abstract Background: Real-world data (RWD) derived from electronic health records are becoming increasingly important for deriving insights from clinical practice to complement findings from clinical trials. Response to treatment in multiple myeloma (MM) is assessed using the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) response criteria based on MM-specific laboratory measures (i.e. monoclonal [M] protein in serum and urine, free light chain [FLC] levels), as well as radiological images and bone marrow (BM) investigations when appropriate. As healthcare providers do not routinely collect all the information required by the IMWG response criteria, RWD data are often incomplete. Here, we present a derived real-world response (dR) algorithm based on IMWG criteria that accounts for lab measures routinely collected in the clinical care of MM patients and evaluate its ability to accurately assess response to treatment using clinical trial patient-level data. Methods: Treatment response is assessed using a rule-based algorithm integrating longitudinal laboratory measures routinely captured in RWD (Xu et al. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2021) as e.g. by the Flatiron MM database. The rules are based on 'relaxed' IMWG criteria, which entail exclusion of BM biopsies data and of imaging results, and reduction in either serum or urine M protein levels (rather than both) to assign partial response. This algorithm was applied to patient-level clinical trial data from the Bellini trial (Kumar et al. Lancet Oncol 2020) with response assignment made by an independent review committee (IRC) in the trial used as the 'ground truth'. Agreement between the IRC's and algorithm's assignments of response was estimated using Cohen's Kappa statistic. Differences in overall response rate (ORR) between treatment and placebo arms were calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests based on strata at randomization with number of prior lines of therapy and previous proteasome inhibitor treatment status variables used for stratification. Results: The Bellini trial is a Phase 3 clinical trial with 2:1 design enrolling 194 and 97 patients in its treatment and placebo arms, respectively (291 patients in total). Regular assessments of M protein and FLC levels were performed (median 13 or 14 measurements), providing detailed trajectory of patient response (Table 1). Comparison between the IRC's and algorithm's assignments of responders classified as Partial Response or better (PR+) resulted in almost perfect agreement with Cohen's Kappa 0.82 (274/291 assignments in agreement). It is worth noting that the Cohen's Kappa between the IRC's and Investigator's assessments is 0.85, indicating that the algorithm's error is within some expected uncertainty. Due to the exclusion of BM information, agreement decreased to 0.56 when depths of response were considered separately as opposed to grouping PR+ patients together with most cases being overestimated as complete response (CR) or stringent CR. In assessing treatment effect, differences in ORR between the intervention and placebo arms in the trial based on IRC's assessment could be accurately recapitulated (68% [66/97] vs 71% [69/97] responders in the placebo arm and 82% [159/194] vs 87% [169/194] in the intervention arm for IRC's and algorithm's assessment, respectively). Based on these results, algorithm response assignment led to consistent conclusions about treatment efficacy in the Bellini trial. Implementation of criteria to characterize very good partial response or better (VGPR+) also led to a conclusion consistent with the Bellini trial IRC's assessment, while implementation of criteria of CR+ resulted in estimates of treatment efficacy that were higher, but directionally consonant (Table 2). Conclusions: We present a fully automated rule-based algorithm for response assessment in MM relying on longitudinal lab measurements during treatment. The algorithm uses 'relaxed' IMWG criteria to account for routine clinical practice settings and demonstrates very high agreement with the assessment of trained clinicians, while reliably reproducing the efficacy analysis in the Bellini trial when ORR and VGPR+ are considered. We envision that, if the concordance observed here is confirmed in other independent cohorts, this algorithm can be used in the assessment of response in RWD and can facilitate response assessment when suboptimal amounts of data are available. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Tyanova: F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Current Employment. Xu: F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG: Current Employment. Williamson: Amgen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Genentech: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Rocci: Novartis: Other: Wife is and employee of Novartis and holds Novartis stocks; Sanofi Aventis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Received travel sponsorship ; Janssen-Cilag Ltd: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Received travel sponsorship ; Owner of 100% stocks of Harlock Healthcare Consulting Ltd (UK privately-held company currently not active).: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Roche: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Received travel sponsorship , Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy; NHS: Ended employment in the past 24 months; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.: Current Employment; AbbVie: Other: Received travel sponsorship . Hong: Imago BioSciences: Current Employment; Genentech, Inc.: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Stock options in Imago BioSciences: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Jin: Genentech Inc: Current Employment; Roche: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Karve: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Roose: Flatiron Health, Inc.: Current Employment; Roche: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Sawas: Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Affimed: Research Funding; Roche: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Flat Iron Health: Current Employment; Acrotech: Honoraria; Daiichi-Sankyo: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Kumar: Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) commonly encompasses combination of drugs within the three drug classes including proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulators and (IMiDs), and monoclonal antibodies, both for newly diagnosed and relapsed disease. With increasing appreciation of disease heterogeneity based on underlying genetic abnormality, and demonstration of efficacy of venetoclax in patients with t(11;14) MM, the outcomes with commonly used MM regimens among the different cytogenetic subgroups are of great interest. Venetoclax, a BCL-2 inhibitor, is being studied in t(11;14) positive MM patients who have received at least two prior lines of treatment (NCT03539744; CANOVA). However, outcomes in previously treated t(11;14) MM patients using standard of care approaches in the real-world setting is limited. Patients and methods: This non-interventional, retrospective observational cohort study included patients with t(11;14) MM from the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) retrospective study of t(11;14) MM. From the overall cohort, patients with t(11;14) MM receiving pomalidomide + dexamethasone (PomDex) in ≥3 rd line were selected, similar to those being enrolled in the ongoing CANOVA trial. Patients were also required to have prior exposure to lenalidomide and a PI without a history of transplant within 16 weeks prior to PomDex initiation. Patients enrolled in a clinical trial were excluded. Overall best response, time to next therapy (TTNT) as a surrogate measure for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed after initiation of PomDex. All analyses were descriptive in nature and were conducted using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Results: Fifty-two patients who met the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Median age was 63 years, 60% were male. Patients had a median of 3 prior lines at start of PomDex, at a median of 4.3 years from diagnosis; 52% had a prior transplant. A PR or better was observed in 34% of patients with PomDex. The median TTNT for this cohort was 6.1 months and median OS was 19.2 months. Conclusion: This retrospective study of non-trial patients with t(11;14) MM provides a benchmark for newer therapies in this patient population for comparison with both venetoclax dexamethasone in the ongoing CANOVA study as well as combinations using the pomalidomide backbone. Disclosures Karve: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kumar: Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, 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, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Gonzalez De La Calle: Celgene-BMS, Janssen, Amgen: Honoraria. Mangiacavalli: GSK: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Kastritis: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis Pharma: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Esteves: AbbVie: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Delforge: Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yee: Karyopharm: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy. Arriola: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Ross: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Manthena: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Durie: Amgen, Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Other: fees from non-CME/CE services .

ObjectiveThe relative risk of SARS–CoV‐2 infection and COVID‐19 disease severity among people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) compared to those without RMDs is unclear. This study was undertaken to quantify the risk of SARS–CoV‐2 infection in those with RMDs and describe clinical outcomes of COVID‐19 in these patients.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature review using 14 databases from January 1, 2019 to February 13, 2021. We included observational studies and experimental trials in RMD patients that described comparative rates of SARS–CoV‐2 infection, hospitalization, oxygen supplementation/intensive care unit (ICU) admission/mechanical ventilation, or death attributed to COVID‐19. Methodologic quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools or the Newcastle‐Ottawa scale. Risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated, as applicable for each outcome, using the Mantel‐Haenszel formula with random effects models.ResultsOf the 5,799 abstracts screened, 100 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the systematic review, and 54 of 100 had a low risk of bias. Among the studies included in the meta‐analyses, we identified an increased prevalence of SARS–CoV‐2 infection in patients with an RMD (RR 1.53 [95% CI 1.16–2.01]) compared to the general population. The odds of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation were similar in patients with and those without an RMD, whereas the mortality rate was increased in patients with RMDs (OR 1.74 [95% CI 1.08–2.80]). In a smaller number of studies, the adjusted risk of outcomes related to COVID‐19 was assessed, and the results varied; some studies demonstrated an increased risk while other studies showed no difference in risk in patients with an RMD compared to those without an RMD.ConclusionPatients with RMDs have higher rates of SARS–CoV‐2 infection and an increased mortality rate.

Abstract Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common malignant brain tumor in adults, responsible for approximately 225,000 deaths per year. Despite pre-clinical successes, therapeutic interventions have failed to extend patient survival by more than a few months. Anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibition monotherapy has had efficacy against some tumor types but not GBM. The aim of this study was to determine whether supplementing anti-PD-1 checkpoint blockade with an engineered extended half-life IL-2 could improve outcomes in a preclinical model of disease. Our enhanced checkpoint blockade (ECB) strategy reliably cures approximately50% of C57BL/6 mice bearing orthotopic GL261 gliomas and extended median survival even in the mice that eventually succumbed. This therapy generates robust immunologic responses, features of which include secondary lymphoid organ enlargement and increased activation status of both CD4 and CD8 T cells. Further, many of the characteristics of brain-tumor mediated peripheral immunosuppression, including MHC class II downregulation on APCs, are prevented by ECB combination therapy. This immunity is durable, with long-term ECB survivors able to resist GL261 rechallenge. Notably, ECB’s efficacy is independent of host MHC class I restricted antigen presentation, being equally efficacious in MHC class I and CD8 T cell deficient mice. Conversely, ECB combination therapy is reliant on CD4 T cells and their depletion abrogates the therapy’s survival benefit. Our data shows ECB combination immunotherapy to be efficacious against the GL261 glioma model through an MHC class I independent mechanism, enhancing its off-the-shelf translational appeal relative to strategies requiring extensive knowledge of tumor-specific antigens.

Abstract Glioblastoma is associated with severe and multifaceted immunosuppression affecting all immune organs. Immunosuppression in GBM is a critical barrier to the success of immunotherapies and patient survival. We demonstrated that immunosuppression in the GL261-model of experimental GBM presents with significant thymic and spleen atrophy, MHCII downregulation, presence of potent immunosuppressive factors in serum, and sequestration of T-cells in the bone marrow. Parabiosis studies determined that soluble factors mediate immunosuppression by inhibiting T-cell proliferation, thymic involution, and loss of peripheral T-cells. In contrast, bone marrow T-cell sequestration was not mediated through soluble factors. While the immunosuppression in GBM is severe, a causative link between each facet of immunosuppression and overall survival is lacking. We used two strategies to block T-cell sequestration into the bone marrow and evaluated the extent survival was impacted in experimental GBM. First, we evaluated the extent a novel and off-the-shelf combination immunotherapy that uses extended 1/2-life IL-2 and anti-PD-1 reverses bone marrow T-cell sequestration. Sham treatment or anti-PD1 monotherapy did not alter T-cell sequestration in the bone marrow and animals had no enhanced survival. Extended 1/2-life IL-2 monotherapy and combination strategy both prevented T-cell sequestration into the bone marrow. However, only combined therapy, which also prevented MHC class II downregulation, improved survival. Second, we determined that glioma-bearing adrenalectomized mice do not present with bone marrow T-cell sequestration. However, sera of glioma-bearing adrenalectomized mice is as immunosuppressive as glioma-bearing controls. Blocking bone marrow T-cell sequestration in the presences of serum immunosuppression led to no survival benefit in glioma-bearing adrenalectomized mice compared to controls. In short, bone marrow T-cell sequestration alone does not correspond with overall survival in experimental glioma. Importantly, a concerted effort to reverse MHC class II downregulation and define inhibitory circulating factors may have the highest impact in immunotherapeutic efficacy and improving patient survival.

AbstractBackgroundThe anatomical structure around the pancreatic head is very complex and it is important to understand its precise anatomy and corresponding anatomical approach to safely perform minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). This consensus statement aimed to develop recommendations for elucidating the anatomy and surgical approaches to MIPD.MethodsStudies identified via a comprehensive literature search were classified using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network method. Delphi voting was conducted after experts had drafted recommendations, with a goal of obtaining >75% consensus. Experts discussed the revised recommendations with the validation committee and an international audience of 384 attendees. Finalized recommendations were made after a second round of online Delphi voting.ResultsThree clinical questions were addressed, providing six recommendations. All recommendations reached at least a consensus of 75%. Preoperatively evaluating the presence of anatomical variations and superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and superior mesenteric vein (SMV) branching patterns was recommended. Moreover, it was recommended to fully understand the anatomical approach to SMA and intraoperatively confirm the SMA course based on each anatomical landmark before initiating dissection.ConclusionsMIPD experts suggest that surgical trainees perform resection based on precise anatomical landmarks for safe and reliable MIPD.