Citations

8016 Background: MAIA, an ongoing phase 3 trial of transplant-ineligible patients (pts) with NDMM, demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival with D-Rd vs Rd alone. Assessment of pt-reported outcomes alongside efficacy endpoints provides pt perspective on their quality of survival and overall value of HRQoL while on treatments (tx). Methods: The EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-5L questionnaires were completed by pts using an electronic device at baseline and every 3 mo during tx; interim results are presented for first 12 mo. Tx effects were assessed using repeated measures, mixed effects models and thresholds for clinically meaningful benefit were based on established criterion from the literature. Results: Compliance rates were high and comparable at baseline ( > 90%) and through month 12 ( > 80%) for both groups (D-Rd [n = 368]; Rd [n = 369]). Improvement in Global Health Status (GHS) occurred in both groups; however, for D-Rd, significantly greater improvement was observed at cycle 3 (LS mean change; D-Rd: 4.5 [95% CI: 2.4, 6.6], Rd: 1.5 [95% CI: -0.7, 3.7]; [p = 0.0454]) and increasing improvement occurred across all time points. Significant improvement and clinically meaningful benefit in HRQoL for D-Rd was also observed in EQ-5D-5L Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores (LS mean change; D-Rd: 10.1 [95% CI: 8.1, 12.1], Rd: 4.9 [95% CI: 2.8, 7.0]; [p = 0.0002]). The VAS median time to worsening was 10 mo longer for D-Rd. Of note, meaningful differences were observed between the tx groups in two subscale scores, pain symptoms and cognitive functioning. Statistically significant less pain was reported early with D-Rd (LS mean change at cycle 3; D-Rd: -17.9 [95% CI: -20.7, -15.0], Rd: -11.0 [95% CI: -14.0, -8.1]; [p = 0.0007]); clinically meaningful reduction in pain symptoms was sustained with D-Rd. There was a decline in cognitive functioning at cycle 12 in both tx arms, with no statistically significant differences between groups. Conclusions: Faster and sustained improvement in HRQoL was observed in pts treated with D-Rd vs Rd with similar findings reflected across pain subscale. Clinical trial information: NCT02252172.

11615 Background: Deficiencies and barriers exist to delivering comprehensive and affordable cancer care. Understanding the variation in organizational commitment, existing programs, and expected outcomes for screening and management of financial distress is needed. Methods: Representatives from 17 of 27 NCCN Member Institutions (63%) completed an online survey in November 2018 conducted by the NCCN Best Practices Committee. Centers were classified based on number of unique patients seen per year, as large ( > 10,000) (76%), or small ( < 10,000) (34%). The survey focused on institutions’ screening and management practices for patient financial distress, perceived barriers in implementation, and leadership attitudes. Results: Routine screening for financial distress was reported by 77% of centers, and most used social worker assessments (94%). 56% screened patients throughout the cancer journey. Help with drug costs, meal or gas vouchers and payment plans were offered by 100% of centers. Formal pre-authorization programs and assistance with claims and denials was offered by 81%. Charity care for medical costs was provided by 100% of the large centers compared to only 33% of small centers (p = 0.03). Median number of social workers (24 vs. 3; p = 0.01) and pharmacy representatives (6 vs. 2; p = 0.02) was also different between large and small centers. 76% evaluated the impact of financial advocacy services through number of patients assisted (85%), bad debt and charity write-offs (85%) or patient satisfaction surveys (54%). 6% and 12% reported overall effectiveness of institutional practice for screening and management of financial distress as poor/ very poor respectively. Inadequate staffing and real time resources (69%), limited institutional budget (50%), lack of reimbursement (50%), and clinical time constraints (50%) were reported as potential barriers in provision of these services. 94% agreed about stronger integration of financial advocacy services into oncology practice and 84% felt that success of these services should be a quality metric. 31% of large centers vs. 100% of small centers plan to increase staffing in this area in the next 5 years. Conclusions: Majority of NCCN Member Institutions report screening and management programs for financial distress, though the actual practices and range of services vary widely. Information from this study can help centers benchmark their performance relative to similar cancer programs and identify best practices in this area.

8517 Background: An increased risk of SPM in MM pts treated with len has been reported. We performed an IPD metanalysis to estimate the incidence of SPM according to len exposure. Methods: Randomized studies of MM, from PubMed and ASCO/IMW/ASH (after 2000), that met the following criteria, were included: randomization to treatment with len (len-trials); randomization to treatment including new drug but not len (no-len-trials); available SPM data. Primary aim was to estimate cumulative incidence of SPMs by len exposure, corrected for death (competing event). Results: Data from 6,383 pts (3,218 from 8 len-trials, 3,165 from 10 no-len-trials) were analyzed. Median age was 69 years. During follow-up (median=30 mos) 420 (6.6%) SPMs were reported: 188 (2.9%) hematologic and 232 (3.6%) solid cancers. Solid tumors occurred with similar incidence in all groups. Incidence of hematologic SPM was significantly higher in patients receiving len (3.2 vs 1.1, p=0.04), but risk is limited to patients treated with melphalan+len (4.1, 95%CI: 2.4-5.8) with no excess in other combinations (len without melphalan: 1.2, 0.0-2.6; melphalan without len: 1.1, 0.0-2.7) (p=0.003). The cumulative incidence of death for any cause was much higher than the risk of SPM. Conclusions: The risk of hematologic SPMs was higher in pts receiving melphalan+len. The benefit/risk profile of len treatment remains positive. Cumulative incidence (%) of SPMs and death (95%CI). [Table: see text]

TPS8116 Background: Eukaryotic translation initiation Factor 5A (eIF5A) has been implicated in the regulation of apoptosis and is the only known protein to be modified by hypusination. Hypusinated eIF5A is the predominant form of eIF5A in cancer cells. However, in its unhypusinated form, eIF5A is pro-apoptotic. SNS01-T, designed to treat myeloma, consists of two components: a plasmid DNA expressing eIF5AK50R (human eIF5A containing a lysine to arginine substitution at position 50) which remains pro-apoptotic because it cannot be hypusinated, and an siRNA against an untranslated region of native eIF5A mRNA. When these two components are combined with linear polyethyleneimine (PEI), the nucleic acids are condensed into nanoparticles for protection from degradation in the blood and enhanced delivery to tissues. The eIF5AK50R transgene is under the control of the B29 promoter and enhancer, which restricts expression to B cells. The mode of action of SNS01-T is to use an eIF5A-specific siRNA to deplete the pool of hypusinated eIF5A in myeloma cells while simultaneously adding pro-apoptotic eIF5AK50R. In vitro cell studies and in vivo xenograft studies have demonstrated the efficacy of this approach. Methods: Eligible patients are enrolled sequentially into four cohorts of increasingly higher doses. Each cohort will receive SNS01-T by intravenous infusion twice weekly for 6 consecutive weeks and then be observed every 4 weeks during a 24-week follow-up period. Eligible patients must have been diagnosed with multiple myeloma according to IMWG criteria, have measurable disease, have relapsed disease after two or more prior treatment regimens, have a life expectancy of at least 3 months, and not be eligible to receive any other standard therapy known to extend life expectancy. The primary objective is to evaluate the safety and tolerability of multiple escalating doses of SNS01-T. Secondary objectives include pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity studies, proinflammatory cytokine quantitation, and therapeutic efficacy. Two of the planned 15 patients have been enrolled. (Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT01435720.)

Background The epidemiological transition of non-communicable diseases replacing infectious diseases as the main contributors to disease burden has been well documented in global health literature. Less focus, however, has been given to the relationship between sociodemographic changes and injury. The aim of this study was to examine the association between disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) from injury for 195 countries and territories at different levels along the development spectrum between 1990 and 2017 based on the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 estimates. Methods Injury mortality was estimated using the GBD mortality database, corrections for garbage coding and CODEm—the cause of death ensemble modelling tool. Morbidity estimation was based on surveys and inpatient and outpatient data sets for 30 cause-of-injury with 47 nature-of-injury categories each. The Socio-demographic Index (SDI) is a composite indicator that includes lagged income per capita, average educational attainment over age 15 years and total fertility rate. Results For many causes of injury, age-standardised DALY rates declined with increasing SDI, although road injury, interpersonal violence and self-harm did not follow this pattern. Particularly for self-harm opposing patterns were observed in regions with similar SDI levels. For road injuries, this effect was less pronounced. Conclusions The overall global pattern is that of declining injury burden with increasing SDI. However, not all injuries follow this pattern, which suggests multiple underlying mechanisms influencing injury DALYs. There is a need for a detailed understanding of these patterns to help to inform national and global efforts to address injury-related health outcomes across the development spectrum.

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

BackgroundQuantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) and dynamic contrast‐enhanced quantitative permeability (DCEQP) on magnetic resonance (MR) have been shown to correlate with neurovascular disease progression as markers of vascular leakage and hemosiderin deposition. Applying these techniques as monitoring biomarkers in clinical trials will be necessary; however, their validation across multiple MR platforms and institutions has not been rigorously verified.PurposeTo validate quantitative measurement of MR biomarkers on multiple instruments at different institutions.Study TypePhantom validation between platforms and institutions.Phantom ModelT1/susceptibility phantom, two‐compartment dynamic flow phantom.Field Strength/Sequence3T/QSM, T1 mapping, dynamic 2D SPGR.AssessmentPhilips Ingenia, Siemens Prisma, and Siemens Skyra at three different institutions were assessed. A QSM phantom with concentrations of gadolinium, corresponding to magnetic susceptibilities of 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, and 0.8 ppm was assayed. DCEQP was assessed by measuring a MultiHance bolus as the consistency of the width ratio of the curves at the input and outputs over a range of flow ratios between outputs.Statistical TestsEach biomarker was assessed by measures of accuracy (Pearson correlation), precision (paired t‐test between repeated measurements), and reproducibility (analysis of covariance [ANCOVA] between instruments).ResultsQSM accuracy of r2 > 0.997 on all three platforms was measured. Precision (P = 0.66 Achieva, P = 0.76 Prisma, P = 0.69 Skyra) and reproducibility (P = 0.89) were good. T1 mapping of accuracy was r2 > 0.98. No significant difference between width ratio regression slopes at site 2 (P = 0.669) or site 3 (P = 0.305), and no significant difference between width ratio regression slopes between sites was detected by ANCOVA (P = 0.48).Data ConclusionThe phantom performed as expected and determined that MR measures of QSM and DCEQP are accurate and consistent across repeated measurements and between platforms.Level of Evidence: 1Technical Efficacy Stage: 2J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:1192–1199.