Citations

Background Blinatumomab is a bispecific T cell antibody construct, that binds and allows CD-3 positive cytotoxic T cells to recognize and eradicate CD19-positive acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) blasts. The drug is approved for patient (pts) with relapsed/ refractory (RR) B-cell ALL and those with minimal residual disease (MRD) based on efficacy in clinical trials. We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of blinatumomab in the "real world" setting. Methods We conducted a retrospective multicenter study in collaboration with 11 U.S. academic institutions, and evaluated the outcome of RR B-cell ALL pts, who received blinatumomab outside of clinical trials. These pts were evaluated for response, duration of response (DOR), overall survival (OS) from the time of blinatumomab initiation and toxicity. DOR was estimated among pts who had achieved complete remission (CR)/CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi). Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared via log-rank test. Results From December 2014 to May 2019, 239 pts with B-cell ALL were identified. Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The median age of pts at blinatumomab initiation was 48 years (yrs) (range, 18-85). Sixty-one (26%) pts had Philadelphia chromosome [t(9;22)] positive (Ph+ve) disease. Sixty-one (26%) pts had ≥ 3 prior therapies and 46 (19%) pts had allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) prior to blinatumomab. Twenty-two (9%) pts received inotuzumab ozagamicin prior to blinatumomab. Twenty-nine (12%) pts received blinatumomab in combination with tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Twelve (5%) pts received blinatumomab for MRD. Response rate (CR/CRi) in pts with RR disease was 61%; 44% had CR with MRD negativity by flow cytometry. Rate of CR/CRi in Ph+ve B-cell ALL was 74.5%. Among 12 pts who received Blinatumomab for MRD, 9 (75%) pts achieved MRD negativity. Overall 113 (48%) pts were successfully bridged to allo-HCT. Median DOR in pts with RR disease was 32.1 months (95% CI; 9.5-not reached [NR]) (Fig. 1a) and when censored at allo-HCT was 14.8 months (95% CI; 5.2-NR) (Fig. 1b). Median OS in pts with RR disease after blinatumomab was 12.7 months (95% CI; 9.2 -17.9) (Fig. 1c) and when censored at allo-HCT was 8.6 months (95% CI; 6.4-11.6) (Fig.1d). Median OS after blinatumomab in RR B-cell ALL Ph+ve pts was NR (59% alive at 2 yr). Among pts who received blinatumomab for MRD, median DOR was NR and 54% sustained MRD negativity at 2 yrs. Median OS was 34.7 months (95% CI; 8.8-34.7) in group of pts who received blinatumomab for MRD. Seven (3%) pts discontinued blinatumomab due to adverse events and 40 (21%) pts had dose interruptions. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade (G) was reported in higher number of pts (93 [39%]) compared to clinical trials, though G3-4 CRS appears to be similar (G1-2 [36%], G3-4 [3%]). Forty-four (44%) pts were treated with steroids and 8 (8%) pts required tocilizumab with steroids for CRS. Ninety-three percent of pts had complete resolution of CRS. CNS toxicities were observed in 31 (13%) pts, among them 60% (n= 19) had G3-4 toxicities. Hepatic toxicities were observed in 84 (35%) pts as outlined in Table 1. Six (2.5%) pts died due to blinatumomab induced toxicities. Conclusion: Our real-world data with multicenter collaboration suggest that overall blinatumomab was well tolerated and had led to significant response in pts with RR B-cell ALL. Disclosures Advani: Amgen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Aldoss:AUTO1: Consultancy; Helocyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodation/expenses; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodation/expenses, Speakers Bureau. Podoltsev:Agios Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Grant funding, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kartos Therapeutics: Research Funding. Curran:Incyte: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Yang:Agios: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Mattison:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Liedtke:Janssen: 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; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Research Funding; Takeda: 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; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Atallah:Helsinn: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy.

Abstract Background Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) is a heterogeneous disease whose myriad manifestations result from accumulation of Langerhans cells in a variety of organs most commonly including skin, bone, central nervous system, liver, lymph nodes, and bone marrow. The disease can affect people of any age. Treatment is primarily driven by disease extent and organ involvement and can range from focused radiation or surgery to multi-agent chemotherapy. There is a relatively high recurrence rate following complete remissions with conventional chemotherapy. In the first-time-in-human (FTIH) study of the oral pan-AKT inhibitor afuresertib (GSK2110183), in patients with hematologic malignancies, a patient with refractory multi-system LCH experienced a prolonged period (> 3 years) of clinical benefit on 125mg oral once daily afuresertib. This observation led to the evaluation of the use of afuresertib in patients with LCH. Methods This single-arm, open-label trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of afuresertib, administered at 125 mg once daily, in adults and adolescents with relapsed/refractory LCH and adults with treatment-naïve LCH. Secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics. Diagnosis of LCH was confirmed by pathology review of archival tissue. The Histiocyte Society criteria were used for response evaluation at three and six months with safety and pharmacokinetic assessments performed at pre-specified intervals. BRAF status from archival tissue was evaluated by Sanger sequencing. Results 17 patients (16 adults, 10 females) were enrolled; median age was 38 years (15-75). 3/17 patients had isolated pulmonary disease, 1/17 had single-system multifocal-bone disease, 1/17 had single-system skin disease, and 12/17 had multi-system disease. Seven patients were treatment-naïve; 10 had relapsed/refractory disease, including the one adolescent. The most frequent (>20% of patients) adverse events (AEs), regardless of causality, were nausea (59%), fatigue (59%), upper respiratory infection (47%), diarrhea (47%), dyspepsia (35%), bone pain (39%), asthenia (24%), memory impairment (24%), decreased appetite (24%) and vomiting (24%). Most AEs were Grade 1 or 2 in severity; no Grade 4 AEs were reported and no Grade 3 AEs occurring in more than 1 subject were reported. 6/17 (35%) had afuresertib dose modifications (interruption or reduction). Afuresertib plasma concentrations in the adult patients were similar to values seen in adult patients with other hematologic malignancies in the FTIH study. Following a single dose, the concentration-time profile in the adolescent patient was similar to adults in the FTIH study (Tmax = 3h: Cmax 229 ng/ml: AUC24 = 3893 ng*h/mL). 15 patients had archival tissues collected for BRAF testing; 13 had DNA suitable for analysis. 2/13 was BRAF V600E mutant and 11/13 were BRAF wild type. Upon evaluation of the all-treated patient population, 5/17 (29%) patients were reported as better at the three and/or six month disease assessment. Among the 5 responders, three were treatment-naïve and two had relapsed/refractory disease. The median duration on study for all patients was 214 (44-426) days. For the 5 patients who responded, the median duration on study was 372 (255-426) days. Conclusion The pharmacokinetic and safety profile of afuresertib in patients with LCH was consistent with that observed in patients with other hematologic malignancies evaluated in the FTIH study. Afuresertib was active in patients with both treatment-naïve and relapsed/refractory disease. Additional evaluation, including molecular profiling, may be warranted alone or in combination with BRAF inhibitors or established therapies for LCH to determine the optimal population of patients with LCH who might benefit from afuresertib Disclosures: Vassallo: GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Oliff:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment. Morris:GlaxoSMithKline: Employment. Reedy:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment. Portnoy:GlaxoSmithKline: Stock, prior employee Other. Smith:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment, Equity Ownership. Noble:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment, stock Other. Murnane:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment, stock Other. Szabo:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment. Heaney:Novartis: Research Funding; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract The time in cellular differentiation at which the expression of an oncogene is dysregulated is thought to determine the phenotype of the resulting neoplasia. We tested this assumption in C57BL6/J transgenic mice expressing an HA-tagged c-myc oncogene in B cells under the control of kappa light chain regulatory elements. Two transgenes were engineered that differed by only one nucleotide. The first set of mice carries a wild type HA-MYC transgene, develops pro-B cell tumors, and succumbs rapidly to pronounced lymphosplenomegaly. In the second set of mice, a point mutation in the HA-tag portion of the transgene creates a stop codon that abrogates HA-MYC translation. This stop codon was engineered to be a hotspot for somatic hypermutation. Thus sporadically, in a germinal center B cell, somatic hypermutation may revert the stop codon, allowing translation of HA-MYC. In two independently derived lines, mice spontaneously develop monoclonal gammopathies (50% incidence at 30 weeks (n=35), 80% at 40 weeks (n=35)). Serum protein electrophoresis detects M-spikes that increase in intensity over time, and 6 out of 7 cases tested so far were of IgG1 isotype. Unlike other mouse models of plasma cell neoplasia, no lymphosplenomegaly nor ascites were detected. In analogy to human multiple myeloma, that is a disease of isotype-switched and hypermutated cells homing to the bone, large populations of plasma cells were found in the bone marrow. Bone marrow (but not spleen) lysates reacted for HA and human MYC proteins by western blot and immunohistochemistry, thus indicating that reversion of the stop codon occurred. Remarkably, in two young mice, monoclonal spikes appeared 2 weeks after vaccination with NP-CGG. These spikes were sustained and the monoclonal protein was reactive to the NP antigen. Together, comparison of the two sets of mice demonstrates that activation of the same transgene at distinct B cell developmental stages results in dramatically different tumor phenotypes. In addition, and opposite to most engineered mice, we have created a system where the oncogene is turned on sporadically, as occurs in the human disease. Furthermore, we have developed a model that faithfully reproduces important clinical aspects of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and its progression to multiple myeloma. This model will be useful to develop immunologic and chemoterapeutic approaches.

Abstract Background: Immunoprevention via targeting antigens aberrantly expressed on colorectal cancers and adenomatous polyps offers the potential for a less invasive prevention strategy than endoscopic surveillance. Specificity of the immune response and long-term memory provide the potential for prolonged protection. Leveraging the infrastructure of the NCI-funded Cancer Prevention Network (CPN) consortium, we are conducting a double-blind randomized trial in individuals with a diagnosis of advanced colorectal adenomas within the previous year. We are evaluating MUC1 vaccine with the TLR-3 agonist polyICLC as an adjuvant, for its immunogenicity, ability to elicit immune memory and prevent recurrence of colorectal adenomas. Aims: We previously reported on the vaccine immunogenicity at week 12 (vaccine administered at 0, 2, and 10 weeks) compared to placebo. Here we report the ability of the vaccine to elicit long-term memory by measuring increase in anti-MUC1 antibody levels following a booster administered at one year. Methods: Subjects with endoscopically resected advanced adenoma (defined as ≥1cm, tubululovillous or villous histology, or with high grade dysplasia) were randomized. The primary endpoint was the response to the vaccine at week 12 assessed by monitoring anti-MUC1 IgG antibody titer ratio defined as t12/t0, where t0 was the titer pre-vaccination, and t12 was the titer at week 12. The key secondary endpoint was to assess anti-MUC1 IgG response at week 55 to a booster at week 52 in the vaccine arm compared to placebo. Results: 102 eligible subjects were randomized at 6 centers, 52 received MUC1 vaccine and 50 placebo. The mean age was 59.4±7.0 (range 40-70), 60.8% male, 88.2% white, and 18.6% Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. At 12 weeks the IgG ratio was ≥2.0 in 13/52 (25%) of individuals receiving vaccine (ratio range -0.5-17.3), vs. 0/50 in placebo group (2-sided p=.0001), and was ≥1.5 in 19/52 (36.5%) individuals receiving vaccine compared to 1/50 (2%) in placebo group (P<.0001). To evaluate immune memory, 1-year booster data available for 95 patients (51-MUC1, 44-placebo) were analyzed. 10/13 (76.9%) of the week 12 vs. week 0 vaccine responders showed a response at week 52 vs. baseline and 11/13 (84.6%) at week 55 vs. week 52. Using an IgG ratio of 2 (per-protocol), the response rate was 33% for MUC1 vs. 5% for placebo (1-sided p=0.0003). Using a ratio of 1.5 yielded similar results (37% MUC1 vs. 9% Placebo (1-sided p=0.0008). The MUC1 arm had significantly higher IgG at week 52 (1-sided p=0.0294), week 55 (1-sided p=0.0048), and significantly higher week 55 to week 52 IgG ratio values (1-sided p=0.0293). Conclusions: Subjects with a recent history of advanced adenoma receiving a MUC1 vaccine compared with a placebo were significantly more likely to develop an immune response at week 12, confirming the vaccine’s immunogenicity, and to respond again at week 55 to a booster injection on week 52, confirming the vaccine’s ability to elicit immune memory. Follow-up colonoscopy to evaluate the vaccine’s potential to lower adenomatous polyp recurrence rates are in progress. Citation Format: Olivera J. Finn, Lisa Boardman, Marcia Cruz-Correa, Ajay Bansal, David Kastenberg, Chin Hurr, Sharon Kaufman, Colleen Akerley, Lynda Dzubinski, April Felt, Karrie Fursa, L.M. Rodriguez, Ellen Richmond, Asad Umar, Eva Szabo, John McKolanis, Ryan McMurray, Nathan Foster, Andres Salazar, Paul Limburg, Robert Schoen. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of preventative MUC1 vaccine in patients with newly diagnosed advanced adenomas: Results from one-year booster [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT236.

Abstract Background: Smoking is the most common etiology for lung cancer. Smoking cessation, even when successful, does not eliminate risk of lung cancer. With inconsistent results of lung chemoprevention trials, an emerging area of interest is immunoprevention, in particular vaccines. MUC1 is a transmembrane glycoprotein aberrantly overexpressed in adenocarcinomas, including lung cancer. Abnormal MUC1 expression is also characteristic of premalignant lesions, including bronchial dysplasia and atypical adenomatous hyperplasia. This suggests that immunization with a MUC1 vaccine in the premalignant or high-risk setting, before the tumor and cytotoxic therapy could suppress the immune system, might be effective in inducing strong immunity and reducing cancer risk. Trial design: Leveraging the infrastructure of the NCI-funded Cancer Prevention Network (CPN) consortium, we are conducting a two-center pilot trial to evaluate co-primary endpoints: immunogenicity of the MUC1 peptide plus polyICLC adjuvant vaccine (assessed at 12 weeks) and safety (assessed at up to 24 weeks) in current and former smokers who are at high risk for lung cancer. 50 participants will be screened in order to have 40 evaluable participants for baseline and 12-week immunogenicity assessments. Eligibility: Smoking history of ≥30 pack-years and either current smoker (still smoking or quit < 1 year prior to pre-registration) or former smoker (quit 1-15 years prior to pre-registration); ages 55-80 years; ECOG performance status ≤1; CT scan of the chest done ≤ 6 months prior to pre-registration showing either negative findings (no nodules) or solid or part-solid nodules < 6 mm in size (consistent with < 1% probability of malignancy, Lung-RADs Version 1.0). Exclusion criteria are standard. Immunogenicity and safety: MUC1 peptide plus polyICLC adjuvant vaccine will be administered at week 0, 2 and 10. The primary endpoint is anti-MUC1 IgG titer that is ≥2 fold higher at week 12 compared to baseline. Based on previous studies of this vaccine, we expect that 40 evaluable participants will provide 96% power to detect immunogenicity response rate of 15% versus 40% using a 2-sided test of proportions with type I error rate of 0.05. AEs and toxicities will be monitored for up to 24 weeks from the first vaccine. Secondary Objectives: We will explore differences, if any, in vaccine immunogenicity in current vs. former smokers. Smoking induces chronic inflammation (hallmark of cancer) associated with immunosuppression. We will evaluate pre-vaccination levels of circulating myeloid derived suppressor cells (MDSC) and correlate with the response to the vaccine. We will explore the impact, if any, of this vaccine on the markers of inflammation (hsCRP, IL-6) and the effect of baseline levels of these markers on the ability to successfully vaccinate. We will also assess the relationship between COPD status and immune response in current versus former smokers. The trial is open to accrual. Citation Format: Olivera J. Finn, Julie Ward, Tami Krpata, Lisa Bengtson, John McKolanis, Sharon Kaufman, Colleen Akerley, April Felt, Karrie Fursa, Anne Holland, Nathan Foster, Andres Salazar, Malgorzata Wojtowicz, Eva Szabo, Paul Limburg, David Midthun, Arjun Pennathur. A pilot study of a MUC1 vaccine in current and former smokers at high risk for lung cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT222.

Abstract The recent pace, extent, and impact of paradigm-changing cancer prevention science has been remarkable. The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) convened a 3-day summit, aligned with five research priorities: (i) Precancer Atlas (PCA). (ii) Cancer interception. (iii) Obesity-cancer linkage, a global epidemic of chronic low-grade inflammation. (iv) Implementation science. (v) Cancer disparities. Aligned with these priorities, AACR co-led the Lancet Commission to formally endorse and accelerate the NCI Cancer Moonshot program, facilitating new global collaborative efforts in cancer control. The expanding scope of creative impact is perhaps most startling—from NCI-funded built environments to AACR Team Science Awarded studies of Asian cancer genomes informing global primary prevention policies; cell-free epigenetic marks identifying incipient neoplastic site; practice-changing genomic subclasses in myeloproliferative neoplasia (including germline variant tightly linked to JAK2 V617F haplotype); universal germline genetic testing for pancreatic cancer; and repurposing drugs targeting immune- and stem-cell signals (e.g., IL-1β, PD-1, RANK-L) to cancer interception. Microbiota-driven IL-17 can induce stemness and transformation in pancreatic precursors (identifying another repurposing opportunity). Notable progress also includes hosting an obesity special conference (connecting epidemiologic and molecular perspectives to inform cancer research and prevention strategies), co-leading concerted national implementation efforts in HPV vaccination, and charting the future elimination of cancer disparities by integrating new science tools, discoveries and perspectives into community-engaged research, including targeted counter attacks on e-cigarette ad exploitation of children, Hispanics and Blacks. Following this summit, two unprecedented funding initiatives were catalyzed to drive cancer prevention research: the NCI Cancer Moonshot (e.g., PCA and disparities); and the AACR-Stand Up To Cancer bold “Cancer Interception” initiative.

Acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) is the culmination of chronic liver disease and extrahepatic organ failures, which is associated with a high short‐term mortality and immense health care expenditure. There are varying definitions for organ failures and ACLF in Europe, North America, and Asia. These differing definitions need to be reconciled to enhance progress in the field. The pathogenesis of ACLF is multifactorial and related to interactions between the immunoinflammatory system, microbiota, and the various precipitating factors. Individual organ failures related to the kidney, brain, lungs, and circulation have cumulative adverse effects on mortality and are often complicated or precipitated by infections. Strategies to prevent and rapidly treat these organ failures are paramount in improving survival. With the aging population and paucity of organs for liver transplant, the prognosis of ACLF patients is poor, highlighting the need for novel therapeutic strategies. The role of liver transplant in ACLF is evolving and needs further investigation across large consortia. A role for early palliative care and management of frailty as approaches to alleviate disease burden and improve patient‐reported outcomes is being increasingly recognized. Conclusion: ACLF is a clinically relevant syndrome that is epidemic worldwide and requires a dedicated multinational approach focused on prognostication and management; investigations are underway worldwide to prepare ACLF for prime time. (Hepatology 2018; 00:000‐000)