Citations

Abstract Background: Trabectedin is an FDA-approved DNA minor groove binder (MGB) that has activity against translocation-associated sarcomas. Lurbinectedin is a next-generation MGB with pre-clinical activity against myeloid leukemia cells. A dose-finding phase 1 clinical trial was performed in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) with further assessment of safety and tolerability. Methods: Forty-two patients with relapsed/refractory AML/MDS received lurbinectedin administered as a 1-hour intravenous infusion in a 3+3 study design. Two dosing schedules were used: 3.5 mg, 5 mg, 7 mg, or 6 mg on days 1 and 8 or 2 mg, 3 mg, 1 mg, or 1.5 mg for 3 consecutive days on days 1 to 3. Patients 18 years or older with a diagnosis of advanced, relapsed/refractory AML (non-acute promyelocytic leukemia) and MDS were eligible and treated on study. Eligible patients had adequate hepatic, renal, and cardiac function and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 to 2. Patients with uncontrolled infection, human immunodeficiency virus, cardiac and neurological disorders, or those who were pregnant were ineligible. Clinical trial information: NCT01314599. Results: Three patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities of rhabdomyolysis (grade 4), hyperbilirubinemia (grade 3), and oral herpes (grade 3) with the days 1 and 8 schedule. Otherwise, adverse events mainly consisted of gastrointestinal manifestations (n=11), febrile neutropenia/infections (n=4), pulmonary toxicity (n=2), and renal failure (n=2). The most common laboratory abnormalities observed were an increase in creatinine (93%) and anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia (100%). Overall, 33 of 42 patients (79%) had reduction in blasts in peripheral blood or bone marrow. One patient achieved a partial response and two patients a morphologic leukemia-free state. Most (n=30, 71%) were discontinued due to progressive disease. Early deaths occurred from disease-related causes that were not attributable to lurbinectedin. Four patients with a chromosome 11q21-23 abnormality had significantly greater bone marrow blast reduction than those without such abnormality, with decrease of 31±14% (n=4) vs. 8±8% (n=16), respectively (P=0.04). Conclusions: Overall, lurbinectedin was safe and tolerated using the schedules and dose levels tested. While no sustained remissions were observed, single-agent lurbinectedin was transiently leukemia suppressive for some patients. Disclosures Rodríguez: PharmaMar: Employment. Ravandi:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria; Abbvie: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Orsenix: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Honoraria; Orsenix: Honoraria; Macrogenix: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria; Xencor: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Macrogenix: Honoraria, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Sunesis: Honoraria. Daver:Sunesis: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Consultancy; Kiromic: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; ARIAD: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Sunesis: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy. Jain:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Novimmune: 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; BMS: Research Funding; Servier: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologioes: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Verastem: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologioes: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: 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; ADC Therapeutics: 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; Servier: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novimmune: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: 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. Maiti:Celgene Corporation: Other: Research funding to the institution. Martinez:PharmaMar: Employment. Siguero:PharmaMar: Employment. Al-Kali:Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: The pivotal phase 3 ECHELON-1 study demonstrated superior efficacy of brentuximab vedotin plus doxorubicin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (A+AVD) versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (ABVD) in patients with previously untreated advanced stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) with a 2-year modified progression-free survival (mPFS) of 82.1% in the A+AVD group versus 77.2% in the ABVD group (Hazard Ratio=0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60, 0.98; p=0.04). PN is a known toxicity associated with anti-mitotic agents, including vinblastine and the MMAE component of brentuximab vedotin. In the ECHELON-1 study, the incidence of any-grade PN events was 67% (442 of 662 patients) and 43% (286 of 659 patients) in the A+AVD and ABVD arms, respectively; the incidence of grade ≥3 PN was 11% and 2%, respectively. At the time of the initial analysis, 67% of A+AVD-treated patients had either resolution (43%) or improvement (24%) of PN events. A total of the 92% of ongoing PN events were grade 1 (64%) or grade 2 (29%). Here, we report rates of PN resolution and improvement in patients participating in the ECHELON-1 study after long-term follow-up. Methods: Patients with Stage III or IV cHL were randomized 1:1 to receive up to six cycles of A+AVD (n=664) or ABVD (n=670). Pre-existing PN was an exclusion factor at study entry. Peripheral neuropathy was determined on the basis of a standardized MedDRA query; patients who developed PN were monitored throughout the study and those with ongoing PN at end of treatment were followed for resolution or improvement during the post-treatment follow-up period; follow-up visits were scheduled for every 12 weeks ±1 week until 36 months, then every 6 months until study closure. PN resolution was defined as completely resolved and improvement was defined as improved by ≥1 grade from worst grade as of the latest assessment. Results: At the time of the primary analysis, 51% (226/442) and 61% (174/286) of patients in the A+AVD and ABVD arms, respectively, had resolution or improvement of PN events at EOT. Upon continued follow-up (~10 additional months) for approximately 30 months (range 0-78.5) after end of treatment, 76% (335/442) of patients with PN in the A+AVD arm had either complete resolution (59%, 260/442) or improvement (17%, 75/442) of their PN events compared with 82% (234/286) with either resolution (72%) or improvement (10%) in the ABVD arm. In the A+AVD arm, 90% of ongoing PN cases (n=182) were grade 1/2; grade 1=58% (n=106), grade 2=32% (n=58). Residual grade 3 PN was reported in 9% (n=17) of patients (1 patient with grade 4 PN died before resolution). In the ABVD arm, residual PN (n=81) was grade 1 (65%; n=53), grade 2 (30%; n=24), and grade 3 (5%; n=4). For the subset of patients with PN that had not resolved by end of treatment, the median time to resolution of all PN events from AE start date was 28 weeks for A+AVD and 14 weeks for ABVD, the median time to improvement of PN was 39 weeks for A+AVD and 18.5 weeks for ABVD. Conclusions: After approximately 2.5 years of continued follow-up, PN continues to resolve and improve for patients who were treated with A+AVD or ABVD in the ECHELON-1 study. In both study arms, the majority of ongoing PN cases are grade 1 or grade 2. Further follow-up is ongoing. Disclosures Radford: Celgene: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Equity Ownership; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Equity Ownership. Connors:Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche Canada: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bayer Healthcare: Research Funding; NanoString Technologies: Patents & Royalties: Named Inventor on a patent licensed to NanoString Technologies, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; F Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding. Younes:Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; J&J: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Gallamini:Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Ansell:Affimed: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Gopal:Aptevo: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Brim: Consultancy; Spectrum: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Teva: Research Funding; Asana: Consultancy. Flinn:Trillium: Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding. Pettengell:CTI: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Dlugosz-Danecka:Servier: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Engley:Seattle Genetics: Employment. Fenton:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Liu:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Purevjal:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Miao:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Gautam:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Kuruvilla:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Canada: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: The phase 3 ECHELON-1 study assessed frontline brentuximab vedotin administered with doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) vs doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) in patients (pts) with advanced cHL (NCT01712490). The primary endpoint of ECHELON-1, modified PFS (mPFS) per independent review facility (IRF), is defined as (1) progressive disease, (2) death, or (3) subsequent anticancer therapy (chemotherapy [chemo] and/or radiotherapy [RT]) following detection of a non-complete response (non-CR = Deauville score 3-5) at end of frontline therapy. A+AVD was superior to ABVD (hazard ratio [HR]=0.77; p=0.035) with 2-year mPFS rates of 82.1% and 77.2%; as previously reported. In pts with newly diagnosed cHL, the aim of frontline therapy is curative. Pts who do not achieve a satisfactory response to frontline therapy may initiate subsequent anticancer therapy prior to response criteria-defined progression. The measurement of traditional PFS becomes confounded, as pts may effectively be rescued from criteria-defined progression by subsequent treatment, resulting in an overestimation of PFS with frontline therapy (Connors et al. Haematologica 2016;101[s5]:22-3[P007]). To further evaluate modified and traditional PFS in the ECHELON-1 study, two sensitivity analyses were conducted. Methods: 1334 pts with Stage III (36%) or IV (64%) cHL were randomized 1:1 to receive A+AVD (n=664) or ABVD (n=670) on days 1 and 15, for up to six 28-day cycles. In addition to mPFS per IRF, mPFS per investigator (INV) was collected. A sensitivity analysis (mPFS-chemo) was performed in which RT following a non-CR at the completion of frontline therapy was not counted as an event: in this case, mPFS-chemo was defined as (1) progression, (2) death, or (3) receipt of additional anticancer chemo excluding RT for pts who are not in CR after completion of frontline therapy. A second sensitivity analysis of traditional PFS (PFS-traditional), defined as (1) progression or (2) death, was also performed. All analyses were performed per INV as, per protocol, IRF follow up of pts was not conducted after the initiation of subsequent therapy. Results: At 2 years, the rates of mPFS per INV (95% CI) for A+AVD vs ABVD were 81.0% (77.6-83.9%) vs 74.4% (70.7-77.7%), respectively; HR=0.72 (95% CI: 0.573, 0.914; p=0.006). Concordance between IRF and INV mPFS assessments was high among all pts in both arms, at 91%. A total of 123 mPFS events per INV were observed among pts treated with A+AVD, including 73 pts with PD, 15 deaths, and 35 who received additional anticancer therapy following evidence of non-CR at the end of frontline therapy, vs 164 per INV mPFS events among pts treated with ABVD, of which 103 were PD, 22 were deaths, and 39 were additional anticancer therapy following evidence of non-CR at the end of frontline therapy. Of the 35 (A+AVD) and 39 (ABVD) additional anticancer therapy events, chemo/RT following evidence of non-CR at the end of frontline therapy accounted for 11/24 and 17/22 of these events, respectively. For mPFS-chemo, a larger benefit in favor of A+AVD vs ABVD, with a HR=0.687 (95% CI: 0.534, 0.885; p=0.003), was observed. The 2-year mPFS-chemo (95% CI) was estimated as 84.0% (80.9-86.7%) for pts treated with A+AVD vs 77.3% (73.7-80.4%) for pts treated with ABVD. A total of 103 events were observed among pts in the A+AVD arm, including 78 pts with PD, 15 deaths, and 10 who received additional chemo following evidence of a non-CR at the end of frontline therapy, vs 145 events among pts treated with ABVD, of which 106 were PD, 22 were deaths, and 17 were additional chemo following evidence of non-CR at the end of frontline therapy. For PFS-traditional, an advantage in favor of A+AVD vs ABVD was also observed: HR=0.70 (95% CI: 0.54-0.91; p=0.006). The 2-year PFS estimate (95% CI) was 84.2% (81.1-86.9%) for A+AVD vs 78.0% (74.4-81.1%) for ABVD. In total, there were 101 PFS events in the A+AVD arm, including 86 pts with PD and 15 deaths; vs 140 PFS events in the ABVD arm, including 118 pts with PD and 22 deaths. Conclusions: Consistent with the primary outcome of ECHELON-1, a benefit in favor of A+AVD vs ABVD was observed independent of the inclusion of additional anticancer RT or chemo as survival events, in addition to progression or death. A traditional PFS assessment including only progression or death events demonstrated that A+AVD resulted in a 30% reduction in the risk of progression or death compared to ABVD. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Connors: Lilly: Research Funding; Bayer Healthcare: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; NanoString Technologies: Patents & Royalties: Named Inventor on a patent licensed to NanoString Technologies, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche Canada: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; F Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Younes:J&J: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Curis: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria. Gallamini:Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Ansell:Pfizer: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Kim:J&J: Research Funding; Kyowa-Kirin: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Celltrion: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Eisai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Advani:Janssen: 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; Forty Seven Inc.: Research Funding; 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; Kyowa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Merck: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Celgene: Research Funding; Autolus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Millenium: Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: 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; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board. Bartlett:KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; ImaginAB: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Straus:Onco Tracker: Consultancy; Roch China: Speakers Bureau; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Employment; JUNO: Consultancy; Medical Crossfire: Speakers Bureau; DAVA Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy; InPractice Elselvier: Consultancy; Millenium (Takeda): Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Sureda:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hutchings:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dlugosz-Danecka:Servier: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Engley:Seattle Genetics: Employment. Fenton:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Liu:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Miao:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Jolin:Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Employment. Gautam:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Radford:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Equity Ownership; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Equity Ownership; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Context.— Biomedical terminologies such as Logical Observation Identifiers, Names, and Codes (LOINC) were developed to enable interoperability of health care data between disparate health information systems to improve patient outcomes, public health, and research activities. Objective.— To ascertain the utilization rate and accuracy of LOINC terminology mapping to 10 commonly ordered tests by participants of the College of American Pathologists (CAP) Proficiency Testing program. Design.— Questionnaires were sent to 1916 US and Canadian laboratories participating in the 2018 CAP coagulation (CGL) and/or cardiac markers (CRT) surveys requesting information on practice setting, instrument(s) and test method(s), and LOINC code selection and usage in the laboratory and electronic health records. Results.— Ninety of 1916 CGL and/or CRT participants (4.7%) responded to the questionnaire. Of the 275 LOINC codes reported, 54 (19.6%) were incorrect: 2 codes (5934-2 and 12345-1) (0.7%) did not exist in the LOINC database and the highest error rates were observed in the property (27 of 275, 9.8%), system (27 of 275, 9.8%), and component (22 of 275, 8.0%) LOINC axes. Errors in LOINC code selection included selection of the incorrect component (eg, activated clotting time instead of activated partial thromboplastin time); selection of panels that can never be used to obtain an individual analyte (eg, prothrombin time panel instead of international normalized ratio); and selection of an incorrect specimen type. Conclusions.— These findings of real-world LOINC code implementation across a spectrum of laboratory settings should raise concern about the reliability and utility of using LOINC for clinical research or to aggregate data.

Abstract The existence of stereotyped B cell receptor immunoglobulins (BcR IG) in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) strongly implicated antigen selection in disease ontogeny. We have previously shown that the stereotyped fraction encompasses ~30% of all CLL and includes multiple subsets with distinct BcR IG configuration and variable size. Eventually, certain major subsets emerged as distinct clinical entities, exemplified by subset #2 (IGHV3-21/IGLV3-21, ~2.5-3% of all CLL, mixed somatic hypermutation (SHM) status) of a particularly aggressive clinical course, thus, sharply contrasting subset #4 (IGHV4-34/IGKV2-30, ~1% of all CLL, mutated IGHV genes, M-CLL), a prototype for indolent disease. Here, taking advantage of a multi-institutional cohort of 21,123 CLL IG rearrangements, almost three times the size of the largest previous study, and the availability of validated, purpose-built immunoinformatics methods, we reappraised BcR IG stereotypy especially focusing on major subsets and the degree of their sequence similarity to related minor subsets. Stereotypy discovery was performed with ARResT/Teiresias, while stereotypy assignment to existing subsets previously deemed as major was performed with ARResT/AssignSubsets (http://bat.infspire.org/arrest/). In the present study, a subset was characterized as major if representing > 0.2% of the cohort (i.e. at least 50 cases). Minor subsets closely related to major ones (termed satellite) were identified applying the following criteria: (i) usage of IGHV genes from the same phylogenetic clan; (ii) VH CDR3 length difference ranging from -2 to +2 compared to the respective major subset; (iii) shared VH CDR3 sequence motif; and, (iv) -2 to +2 difference in the offset of the VH CDR3 motif compared to the respective major subset. In total, 7378/21123 (34.9%) IG sequences were grouped into subsets with stereotyped VH CDR3, with the previously characterized 19 major subsets accounting collectively for 2594 sequences (12.3%) of the cohort: of these, 12 included cases with unmutated IGHV genes (U-CLL), 6 concerned M-CLL and 1 (subset #2) included cases with mixed SHM status. Four additional subsets exceeded 50 cases, and, thus, were also considered as 'major'. These results reinforce the notion that not all CLL will end up being stereotyped but rather that a plateau for stereotypy exists at ~1/3 of the cohort. Subset #2 was the largest subset (n=572, 2.7%), while subset #1 (IGHV clan I (IGHV1,5,7 subgroups)/IGKV1(D)-39) was the most frequent subset within U-CLL (n=515, 2.4%) and subset #4 the most common M-CLL subset (n=192, 0.9%), hence displaying remarkable consistency regarding their frequency in all cohorts published since the pioneering studies. Altogether, Teiresias and AssignSubsets gave concordant results for previously identified major subsets, illustrating the validity of our approach. Satellite subsets were sought for individually for each major subset. In general, few satellite subsets were identified, most of which concerned U-CLL major subsets. That notwithstanding, notable cases of satellite subsets were exemplified by major subset #1 and its satellite subset #99 from which it differed only in VH CDR3 length (13 aminoacids in subset #1 versus 14 in subset #99); interestingly, both subsets displayed equally aggressive clinical course. Another example concerned subset #8 (IGHV4-39/IGKV1(D)-39, U-CLL), an aggressive subset with very high risk for Richter's transformation, that, except for a one-aminoacid difference in VH CDR3 length, was otherwise identical to satellite subset #215, also displaying clinical aggressiveness. Overall, our results confirm that major subsets can be robustly identified and are consistent in relative size, hence representing distinct disease subgroups amenable to compartmentalized research with the potential of overcoming the pronounced heterogeneity of CLL. Most major subsets display unique sequence motifs, however satellite subsets exist, especially within U-CLL. Considering ever-increasing evidence that major stereotyped subsets may represent distinct disease subgroups, the existence of satellite subsets reveals a novel aspect of repertoire restriction and has implications for refined molecular classification of CLL. Disclosures Shanafelt: Genentech: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithkKine: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Hospira: Research Funding. Gaidano:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Niemann:Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Langerak:F. Hofmann-LaRoche, Genentech: Research Funding; InVivoScribe Technologies: Patents & Royalties: Royalties are provided to European Network (EuroClonality). Jaeger:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kater:Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Stilgenbauer:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding. Hallek:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Rosenquist:Gilead Sciences: Speakers Bureau. Ghia:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Stamatopoulos:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Pev (TAK-924/MLN4924), a novel investigational NAE inhibitor, enhances the anti-leukemic effects of aza in AML cell lines and murine xenografts (Smith et al, Blood 2011). Single-agent pev activity was confirmed in relapsed/refractory AML pts (Swords et al, Br J Haematol 2015). This open-label, multi-center, dose-escalation study (NCT01814826) investigated pev + aza in treatment-naïve older AML pts. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs)includedG2 hyperbilirubinemia and G4 AST elevation (n=1 each) at pev 30 mg/m2. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) for the combination was pev 20 mg/m2 + aza 75 mg/m2 (Swords et al, ASH 2014).We present updated safety/efficacy results for the MTD cohort (fully enrolled). Methods: Primary objectives included safety and tolerability assessments of pev + aza in addition to defining the MTD. Secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics (PK) and disease response assessments. Treatment-naïve pts ≥60 yrs unlikely to benefit from standard induction therapy (defined by ≥1 of: antecedent hematologic disease; known adverse cytogenetic risk; ECOG PS 2; ≥75 yrs), received pev 20 or 30 mg/m2 IV on d 1, 3 and 5, + fixed-dose aza (75 mg/m2 IV/SC) on d 1-5, 8 and 9, every 28 d until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed per NCI-CTCAE v4.03; response per IWG criteria for AML. Bone marrow samples were collected at screening to assess cytogenetic risk (CALGB) and mutation profile; serial samples for PK analysis were drawn in cycle 1. Results: Demographics:As of May 17 2016, 61 pts (median age 75 yrs [range 61-89]; 54% male; 77% ECOG PS 0/1, 23% ECOG PS 2; 57% de novo, 43% secondary AML; median marrow blasts 36% [range 5-92]) had received pev 20 mg/m2, of whom 48% had intermediate-, 30% adverse-, and 3% favorable-risk cytogenetics. Safety/PK: Pts received a median of 4 cycles (range 1-33), and 23/61 pts (38%) received ≥6 cycles of pev + aza. The most common AEs were constipation (46%), nausea (44%), fatigue (43%), and anemia (39%). Fifty pts (82%) experienced ≥G3 AEs; the most frequent (≥15%) were anemia, febrile neutropenia (each 28%), thrombocytopenia (21%), neutropenia (18%), and pneumonia (15%). ≥G3 AST/ALT elevations were reported in 5% of pts. Forty-one pts (67%) experienced serious AEs; the most frequent (≥10%) were febrile neutropenia, neutropenia (each 25%), and pneumonia (11%). Two pts discontinued due to pev related toxicity (G3 febrile neutropenia). There were 11 on-study deaths unrelated to study therapy. In the MTD expansion phase (n=55), 2 pts experienced DLTs of transient G3/4 transaminase elevations, and were successfully re-challenged following dose reduction to remain on study. Pev PK was not altered by the addition of aza. Responses: Overall response rate (ORR) in 52 response-evaluable pts was 60% (18CR, 5CRi, 8PR; Figure 1), with a median duration of remission of 8.3 mos (95% CI: 5.75, 12.06); 19/31 (61%) responses occurred within the first 2 cycles.Of the 23 pts with CR/CRi, 14 had responses lasting ≥4 cycles, 2 went on to have allogeneic stem cell transplant, 9 had intermediate-, 7 adverse-, and 1 favorable-risk cytogenetics. ORR was: 64% (14/22; 7CR, 3CRi, 4PR) vs 57% (17/30; 11CR, 2CRi, 4PR) for pts with low- (<30%) vs high- (≥30%) marrow blasts; 58% (18/31; 11CR, 3CRi, 4PR) vs 62% (13/21; 7CR, 2CRi, 4PR) for de novo vs secondary AML pts; 61% (14/23; 8CR, 1CRi, 5PR) vs 50% (8/16; 5CR, 2CRi, 1PR) for intermediate- vs adverse-risk cytogenetic pts; 83% (19/23; 14CR, 2CRi, 3PR) vs 41% (12/29; 5CR, 3CRi, 4PR) for pts who received ≥6 cycles vs <6 cycles of aza, respectively. Responses were seen in pts with typically refractory disease; 7/11 pts with TP53 mutations achieved either a CR/CRi (n=3) or PR (n=4); 4 stayed on study for >10 cycles. After a median follow-up of 16.4 mos, 6-mo survival was 52%. Median overall survival was: 7.0 mos for the MTD cohort; 8.5 vs 5.2 mos for pts with low- (<30%) vs high- (≥30%) marrow blasts (Figure 2); 5.6 vs 11.2 mos for de novo vs secondary AML pts (Figure 3); and 16.1 vs 5.3 mos for pts aged 65-74 vs ≥75 yrs, respectively. Conclusion: Pev + aza was well tolerated. Response rates and durable remissions were observed with limited additional toxicity beyond what is expected for aza alone. The timing and frequency of responses suggests benefit from the addition of pev compared to aza alone (Dombret et al, Blood 2015). At the time of writing, a randomized phase 2 study in low-blast AML/high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes is ongoing. Disclosures Coutre: Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacylics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Zeidner:Tolero: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy; Agios: Honoraria. Foran:medscape: Honoraria; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; novartis: Honoraria; pfizer: Honoraria; karyopharm: Honoraria; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; agios: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding. Cruz:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Honoraria; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Speakers Bureau. Erba:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celator: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Astellas: Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Berdeja:Abbvie, Acetylon, Amgen, Bluebird, BMS, Calithera, Celgene, Constellation, Curis, Epizyme, Janssen, Karyopharm, Kesios, Novartis, Onyx, Takeda, Tragara: Research Funding. Tam:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy. Vardhanabhuti:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Dobler:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Faessel:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Dash:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Sedarati:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Dezube:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment, Equity Ownership. Savona:Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Ariad: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: 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; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Total body irradiation (TBI)-based conditioning regimens are considered the standard of care for patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). However, due to concerns regarding acute and long-term toxicities, non-TBI regimens, commonly including busulfan (BU), have been increasingly explored. We performed a retrospective cohort analysis with the hypothesis that there would be equivalence of these two myeloablative approaches by reviewing outcomes for adult patients (pts), aged 18-60 years, undergoing a first, well-matched sibling, related or unrelated donor HCT in CR1 or CR2 reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) from 2005-2014. Eight hundred nineteen pts received TBI (63% 9-12 Gy, 37% ≥13 Gy) combined with etoposide (25%) or cyclophosphamide (Cy) (75%) and 299 pts received intravenous BU combined with a second alkylator Cy (15%) or melphalan (Mel) (13%), or a nucleoside analogue fludarabine (Flu) (41%) or clofarabine (Clo)(30%). The majority of the BU-based pts were treated at the Moffitt or MD Anderson Cancer Center. The BU-based regimens were grouped together for analyses since no significant differences in basic outcomes among the different chemotherapy-only regimens were noted. Patients in the BU-containing group were older but had better performance status, took longer to achieve CR1 and longer to receive HCT; more received peripheral blood than marrow grafts, peri-HCT ATG, pre- and post HCT tyrosine kinase inhibitors ( TKI), and were treated more recently than pts in the TBI-based group (Table 1). With median follow-up of 3.6 years for the BU-based group and 5.3 years for the TBI-based group, adjusted 3 year outcomes showed treatment-related mortality (TRM) BU 19% vs. TBI 25% (p=.04); relapse BU 37% vs. TBI 28% (p=.007); disease-free survival (DFS) Bu 45% vs. TBI 48% (p=.35); and overall survival (OS) BU 57% vs. TBI 53% (p=.35) (Figures A-B). Patients in the BU group had significantly more grade II-IV acute GVHD (47% vs. 40%, p=.025), but marginally less chronic GVHD (49% vs. 55% at 3 years, p=.073). In multivariate analysis, the BU group had a significantly higher rate of acute GVHD after day 50 (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.19-2.58, p=.004), but marginally less chronic GVHD (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68-1.01 p=.059) and higher risk of relapse (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.15-1.85 p=.002) compared with TBI-based regimens. Despite the observed higher risks of acute GVHD and relapse, BU-based conditioning led to similar TRM, OS, and DFS following HCT for ALL. Table 1 Table 1. Figure Figure. Disclosures Ciurea: Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; Cyto-Sen Therapeutics: Equity Ownership. Seftel:Otsuka: Research Funding. Pulsipher:Medac: Other: Housing support for conference; Chimerix: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Study Steering Committee. Champlin:Ziopharm Oncology: Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties; Intrexon: Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties.

Abstract In chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), the molecular features of the clonotypic B-cell receptor immunoglobulins (BcR IG) are set from the birth of the clone and in contrast to genetic aberrations, remain stable overtime, rendering the BcR IG a reference biomarker that is usually not significantly affected by clonal evolution. Approximately 30% of CLL cases carry quasi-identical BcR IGs and can be assigned to distinct stereotyped subsets. While preliminary evidence alludes to BcR IG stereotypy being relevant from a clinical viewpoint, this aspect has never been explored systematically or in a cohort of adequate size to enable meaningful conclusions. In order to assess the clinical implications of BcR IG stereotypy, we evaluated clinicobiological data from 8593 CLL patients, particularly focusing on 14 major stereotyped subsets of cases with unmutated (U-CLL) or mutated IGHV genes (M-CLL). The largest subset was #2 (n=254, 3%), within which 156 and 98 cases were M-CLL and U-CLL, respectively, followed by U-CLL subsets #1 (n=173, 2%) and #7 (n=123, 1.4%). Amongst M-CLL, the largest subsets were #4 (n=94, 1.1%) and #148 (n=92, 1%). Stereotyped subsets, even of the same mutational category i.e. U-CLL or M-CLL, exhibited significant clinicobiological differences regarding: age at diagnosis (median age ranging from 53-68 years, p<0.001); gender distribution (male/female ratios ranging from 0.85-4.4, p<0.001); the frequency of advanced stage disease (Binet C) at diagnosis (ranging from 9-21%, p<0.001); CD38 positivity (median percentage of positive cells ranging from 2-73%, p<0.05). Moving to cytogenetic findings, we detected subset-biased spectra of FISH-detected aberrations which can be summarized as follows: (i) isolated del(13q) varied from 10% in subset #8 (U-CLL), to 29% in subsets #59 (U-CLL) and #16 (M-CLL), and >75% in M-CLL subsets #77 and #148 (p<0.001); (ii) trisomy 12 was absent in subsets #31 (U-CLL) and #77 (M-CLL), in 20% of subset #201 (M-CLL) and, 60% in subset #8 (U-CLL) (p<0.001); (iii) del(11q) ranged from 69% in subset #31 (U-CLL) to 12% in subset #8 (U-CLL) and 0% in M-CLL subsets #16 and #201 (p<0.001); (iv) del(17p): absent from all M-CLL subsets except #148 (7.5%); absent from U-CLL subsets #5 and #59, and present in 19% and 17% of stereotyped subset #8 and #6 cases, respectively (p<0.05). We considered subset #2 separately since it included both M-CLL and U-CLL and identified a distinctive clinicobiological profile characterized by a constellation of features, including high incidence of Binet stage C disease (21%), CD38 positivity (41%) and certain cytogenetic abnormalities i.e. del(13q) (56%) and del(11q) (23%) and, in contrast, low frequency of del(17p) (4.5%). Notably, no differences were found between U-CLL versus M-CLL subset #2 cases regarding the incidence of these parameters. Survival analysis for time-to-first-treatment (TTFT) revealed that each stereotyped subset exhibited a distinct clinical course, different from that of other subsets even with similar IGHV gene mutational status and/or expressing the same IGHV gene. Interestingly, subsets #1 and #2 demonstrated a similar TTFT to that of del(17p) positive cases, while within subset #2 the clinical outcome was independent of IGHV mutational status. By integrating BcR IG stereotypy into the Döhner cytogenetic prognostication model, we found that subsets #1, #2 and #4, collectively accounting for ~7% of our series, and representing both U-CLL and M-CLL, constituted distinct clinical entities, with the latter exhibiting a particularly indolent disease even when compared to isolated del(13q) cases or cases with no cytogenetic aberrations. Finally, in multivariate analysis for TTFT, assignment to subset #2 emerged as a new independent unfavorable factor (p=0.002); furthermore, when restricting the analysis to Binet A cases, subset #2 exhibited the second highest hazard ratio after U-CLL. In conclusion, the molecular classification of CLL based on BcR IG stereotypy refines prognostication beyond IG mutational status and improves the Döhner hierarchical model. Hence, we suggest that a compartmentalized approach focusing on and comparing different subsets sheds light on CLL clinical behavior and biology and that BcR IG stereotypy represents a companion molecular diagnostic for personalized medicine in CLL. Disclosures Montillo: Janssen: Honoraria.

Abstract BACKGROUND: The study of rare diseases is limited by the uncommon nature of the conditions as well as the widely dispersed patient populations. Current rare disease registries such as the National Organization of Rare Diseases utilize centralized platforms for data collection; however because of their broad nature, these do not always capture unique, disease specific elements. Hairy Cell Leukemia (HCL) is a rare leukemia globally with approximately 900 new cases diagnosed in the US each year. The HCL Foundation undertook creation of a Patient Data Registry that collects data from multiple HCL Centers of Excellence (COE) around the globe to better understand the complications, treatment outcomes, disease subtypes, comorbid conditions, epidemiology, and quality of life of patients with HCL. METHODS: Investigators at The Ohio State University Department of Biomedical Informatics and Division of Hematology in collaboration with the HCL Foundation developed a Patient Data Registry (PDR) for the longitudinal capture of high quality research data. This system differs from other registries in that it uses a federated( rather than centralized) architecture, wherein data is queried and integrated in an on-demand manner from local registry databases at each participating site. Further, the data collected for use in the registry combines both automated exports from existing electronic health records (EHRs) as well as additional data entered via a set of web-based forms. All manually entered data comes from source documents, and data provenance spanning electronic and manually entered data is maintained via multiple technical measures. Patients may be enrolled at HCL COE, or, if they do not have access to a COE they may enroll via a web-based portal (www.hairycellleukemia.org). At this time due to regulatory requirements the web-based portal is available to US patients only. All data are de-identified (see Figure 1: De-Identification Workflow) which reduces regulatory burden and increases opportunities for data access and re-use. End users have access to data via a project-specific query portal. RESULTS: The Patient Data Registry has been deployed at The Ohio State University, Royal Marsden Hospital, and MD Anderson Cancer Center, and is undergoing deployment at the University of Rochester. Up to 25 international HCL COE may participate. In addition, US patients are actively entering the registry via the web-based portal. To date, 227 patients have been consented to the registry with 119 of these being via the web-based entry point. CONCLUSION: We created an international and web-based patient data registry which will enable researchers to study outcomes in HCL in ways not previously possible given the rarity of the disease. This work was made possible by research funding from the Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation. Figure De-Identification Workflow Figure. De-Identification Workflow Disclosures Andritsos: Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation: Research Funding. Anghelina:Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation: Research Funding. Lele:Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation: Research Funding. Burger:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Delgado:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis/GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding. Jones:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Lozanski:Beckman Coulter: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding. Montserrat:Morphosys: Other: Expert Testimony; Vivia Biotech: Equity Ownership; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Expert Testimony; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses. Parikh:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Park:Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Robak:Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Tam:janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: 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. Heckler:Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation: Research Funding. Payne:Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) with refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) have poor outcomes with currently available therapies, with a complete response (CR) rate of 8%, a partial response (PR) rate of 18%, and median overall survival (OS) of 6.6 months (mo) as demonstrated in the 635 pt SCHOLAR-1 meta-analysis (Crump, ASCO 2016; abstract 7516). ZUMA-1 is the first multicenter trial of anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells in refractory, aggressive NHL (NCT02348216). The phase 1 portion of ZUMA-1 showed ongoing CRs at 12+ mos in 43% of pts (Locke, ESMO 2016; abstract 1048O). The pivotal phase 2 portion of ZUMA-1 comprises 2 cohorts based on tumor type: DLBCL (cohort 1) and primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma or transformed follicular lymphoma (cohort 2). Here, we present results of a prespecified interim analysis from cohort 1. Methods: Pts received a target dose of 2 × 106 anti-CD19 CAR T cells/kg after a low-dose conditioning regimen of cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m2) and fludarabine (30 mg/m2) daily for 3 days. The primary endpoint is objective response rate (ORR) per 2007 IWG criteria. Key secondary endpoints include duration of response, frequency of adverse events (AEs), and levels of CAR T cells and serum cytokines. Key inclusion criteria include age ≥18 years, ECOG performance status (PS) 0-1, and refractory disease defined as progressive disease or stable disease as best response to last line of therapy, or disease progression ≤12 mos after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Pts must have received a prior anti-CD20 antibody and an anthracycline-containing regimen. A prespecified interim analysis was to be conducted to determine early efficacy with a nominal alpha level of 0.017 in 50 treated pts in cohort 1 with a minimum follow-up of 3 mos. Results: In total, 111 pts from 22 institutions were enrolled and leukapheresed, and 101 pts received KTE-C19. As of August 24, 2016, 51 pts in cohort 1 were eligible for analysis. Median age was 58 years (range, 25-76), 73% were male, 71% had ECOG PS 1, 78% were refractory to ≥2 lines of therapy, 20% relapsed ≤12 mos of ASCT, and 61% were treated with ≥3 lines of prior therapy. KTE-C19 was successfully manufactured in 99% of pts enrolled. Average turnaround time from apheresis to receipt of KTE-C19 at the clinical site was 17.4 days. With an ORR of 76%, the study met the primary endpoint (P<0.0001; exact binomial test comparing observed ORR to a historical control assumption of 20%), with 47% CRs and 29% PRs. 92% of responses occurred within the 1st mo, and 39% of pts had ongoing responses (CR in 33%) at 3 mos. Responses were seen across key covariates, including refractory subgroup (refractory to chemotherapy=76%, relapse post ASCT=80%). Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free survival at 1 and 3 mos were 92% and 56%, respectively. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs were neutropenia (67%), anemia (39%), thrombocytopenia (29%), febrile neutropenia (27%), and encephalopathy (24%). Grade ≥3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic events occurred in 20% and 29% of pts, respectively. There was 1 grade 5 KTE-C19-related event of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis. CAR T cells expanded within 14 days of KTE-C19 infusion, and peak expansion was associated with ongoing response at mo 3 (P=0.008). Pts who developed grade ≥3 neurological events had increased serum levels of IL-15 (P=0.0002), IL-6 (P=0.003); IL-10 (P=0.009) and IP-10 (P=0.0003). Cytokines/chemokines returned to baseline levels in most pts by day 28. Data from 93 pts with at least 1 mo of follow-up at the data cutoff will be presented. Conclusions: ZUMA-1 is the first reported multicenter trial of CAR T cell therapy in pts with refractory aggressive NHL. KTE-C19 induced a nearly 6-fold higher CR rate compared to historical outcomes in SCHOLAR-1. Efficacy strongly associated with peak CAR T levels. Central manufacturing, logistics, and AE management were successfully implemented across 22 sites, most with no prior CAR T therapy experience. Results from cohort 2 of ZUMA-1 are also presented (Abstract #998). KTE-C19 demonstrated significant clinical benefit in pts with no curative treatment options. Supported in part by funding from The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Therapy Acceleration Program®. Drs Neelapu and Locke contributed equally to this study. Disclosures Neelapu: Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Locke:Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Miklos:pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Jacobson:Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Siddiqi:Pharmacyclics: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau. Lin:Mayo Clinic: Employment; Janssen: Research Funding. Timmerman:Bristol-Myers Squibb, Kite Pharma, Valor Biopharmaceuticals, Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Genmab, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Goy:COTA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Research funding for clinical trials through institution, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Research funding for clinical trials through institution; Acerta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Other: Research funding for clinical trials through institution. Smith:Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Spectrum: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria. Deol:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Avivi:Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical center: Consultancy, Other: consultancy to :BMS Roche. Westin:Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spectrum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ProNAi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chavez:Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Levy:Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Five Prime Therapeutics: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Corvus: Consultancy; Dynavax: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Reagan:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Bot:Kite Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rossi:Kite Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Navale:Kite Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jiang:Kite Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Aycock:Kite Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Elias:Kite: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wiezorek:Kite Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Go:Kite Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership.