Citations

Abstract Context Treatment of pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (PPGL) requires preintervention titration of alpha- and beta-adrenergic blockade, but patients may still be at risk for complications from catecholamine excess. Metyrosine decreases catecholamine production, making it an attractive therapeutic adjunct for select patients. Evidence Acquisition A systematic literature review was performed (Ovid Medline and Scopus databases) on December 17, 2019, including studies with humans and original data. Studies with 10 or more patients on metyrosine for PPGL were included. Studies were screened for overlapping populations, and the most comprehensive study was included. The references of included studies were reviewed for additional data. Patient data from our institution between 2000 and 2015 were also reviewed. Evidence Synthesis Metyrosine is well tolerated when used for a short course and can improve intraoperative outcomes in PPGL. Metyrosine should be considered when a difficult PPGL resection is expected (eg, pericardiac paraganglioma, abdominal paraganglioma with great vessel involvement), a large release of catecholamines is anticipated (eg, ablative therapy, chemotherapy), or when standard alpha- and beta-adrenergic blockade are not tolerated or cannot adequately control hypertension. Side effects are generally mild and self-limited, with sedation in a majority of patients. Extrapyramidal side effects are rare but can limit use of metyrosine. Because of its expense and limited availability, metyrosine use should be carefully planned and timed in relation to surgery. Conclusions Metyrosine is a safe addition to traditional alpha- and beta-adrenergic blockade and should be considered in those patients with PPGL at high risk for acute release of catecholamines.

AbstractIntroductionHypoalbuminemia is a known adverse prognostic factor in lymphomas. Yet, it is unknown if axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi‐cel) overcomes the adverse prognostic impact of hypoalbuminemia in relapsed/refractory large B‐cell lymphoma.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis across three Mayo Clinic centers to assess the relationship of hypoalbuminemia (defined as a serum albumin (SA) levels ≤ 3.5 g/dL) on outcomes of patients treated with axi‐cel.ResultsThis analysis included 81 patients. Two patients had no available SA levels preceding axi‐cel infusion. Eighteen patients (22.8%) had hypoalbuminemia with a median SA of 3.3 g/dL. Patients with normal SA had a statistically higher ORR than those without hypoalbuminemia (P = .018). There was no difference in 1‐year PFS and OS between the group with hypoalbuminemia and the group with normal SA levels (48% vs 49%, P = .81) and (74% vs 73%, P = .97), respectively. There was no difference in the severity or median duration of cytokine release syndrome or neurotoxicity between the two groups.ConclusionNotwithstanding the limitations related to the relatively small sample size, axi‐cel therapy appears to overcome the adverse effect of hypoalbuminemia on OS and PFS. Large multicenter clinical studies are certainly needed to validate these findings.

Abstract Assessment of patient out-of-pocket cost for palbociclib therapy in advanced breast cancerBackground:Palbociclib has demonstrated improved outcomes in patients with advanced hormone receptor positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) negative breast cancer when used in combination with endocrine therapy 1,2. The current average wholesale price of therapy with this medication class exceeds $190,000 per year (at full dose). Financial toxicity is a major concern in the oncology population and can decrease patient quality of life and may result in non-adherence 3,4. Our objective was to describe the out-of-pocket cost burden for patients treated with palbociclib. Methods:A retrospective review of patients newly initiated on palbociclib therapy between May 5, 2018 and May 30, 2019 was completed at our institution. Patients were included if they were 18 years of age and older, newly starting palbociclib for advanced or metastatic HR+/HER2- breast cancer, had US-based insurance, and received palbociclib from our internal specialty pharmacy. Cost information was collected utilizing dispensing reports and additional patient-specific information was obtained from the EHR. Descriptive statistics were performed on the collected data. Results:A total of 44 patients were included in the cost analysis. Primary sources of coverage for these patients included commercial insurance (n=13), Medicare (n=25), and state/federal insurance (n=6). We first assessed costs with primary insurance coverage alone. The sum of all the initial cycle out-of-pocket copays after primary insurance totaled $49,108. The median individual copay was $291, the range was $0 to $2,943, and 9 of the 44 patients had no copay after the primary insurance was applied. The impact of assistance programs, which include independent grant funding, copay cards, vouchers, and secondary Medicaid plans, was significant. After applying primary insurance and aid from assistance programs, the sum of all initial cycle out-of-pocket copays reduced from $49,108 to $3,172. After assistance, 33 of the 44 patients had an initial copay cost of $0. Over 90% of the out-of-pocket total was from two patients (one each with a copay of $2,467 and $497). Ultimately, Mayo Clinic Specialty Pharmacy helped patients avoid $45,851 in first cycle out-of-pocket copays, of which $41,079 and $4,772 were for Medicare and commercially-insured patients, respectively. Copay cost by type of insurance was assessed. All patients with commercial insurance (n=13) had no actual copay for the first cycle. Medicare patients (n=25) are not eligible for copay cards and had larger pre-assistance copays compared to commercial patients (median $2,454 vs. $45). Vouchers or grants were utilized by 16 out of 25 Medicare covered patients. State/Federal insurance included 2 Tricare and 4 Medicaid patients. While ineligible for copay card assistance, the copays for these patients were low, ranging from $0-$28. Standard Medicare D plans do not have an out of pocket maximum for the year. The catastrophic phase requires an ongoing copay of 5% of the total claim cost, resulting in approximately a $600 per month copay for the remainder of the calendar year during the study period. When combined with the first cycle cost of approximately $2500, the yearly out-of-pocket cost for a patient with a standard Medicare D plan is roughly $10,000. Conclusion:Patients initiating therapy with palbociclib are commonly faced with high out-of-pocket costs. The availability, eligibility, and use of financial assistance programs are imperative in decreasing the financial toxicity. Specialty pharmacies play an important role in obtaining financial assistance which leads to decreased out-of-pocket expenses for patients. Citation Format: Allison P Golbach, Matthew D Smith, Jodi L Taraba, Karthik V Giridhar. Assessment of patient out-of-pocket cost for palbociclib therapy in advanced breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS7-49.

Because up to 12% of obstetric patients meet criteria for the diagnosis of thrombocytopenia in pregnancy, it is not infrequent that the anesthesiologist must decide whether to proceed with a neuraxial procedure in an affected patient. Given the potential morbidity associated with general anesthesia for cesarean delivery, thoughtful consideration of which patients with thrombocytopenia are likely to have an increased risk of spinal epidural hematoma with neuraxial procedures, and when these risks outweigh the relative benefits is important to consider and to inform shared decision making with patients. Because there are substantial risks associated with withholding a neuraxial analgesic/anesthetic procedure in obstetric patients, every effort should be made to perform a bleeding history assessment and determine the thrombocytopenia etiology before admission for delivery. Whereas multiple other professional societies (obstetric, interventional pain, and hematologic) have published guidelines addressing platelet thresholds for safe neuraxial procedures, the US anesthesia professional societies have been silent on this topic. Despite a paucity of high-quality data, there are now meta-analyses that provide better estimations of risks. An interdisciplinary taskforce was convened to unite the relevant professional societies, synthesize the data, and provide a practical decision algorithm to help inform risk-benefit discussions and shared decision making with patients. Through a systematic review and modified Delphi process, the taskforce concluded that the best available evidence indicates the risk of spinal epidural hematoma associated with a platelet count ≥70,000 × 10 6 /L is likely to be very low in obstetric patients with thrombocytopenia secondary to gestational thrombocytopenia, immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in the absence of other risk factors. Ultimately, the decision of whether to proceed with a neuraxial procedure in an obstetric patient with thrombocytopenia occurs within a clinical context. Potentially relevant factors include, but are not limited to, patient comorbidities, obstetric risk factors, airway examination, available airway equipment, risk of general anesthesia, and patient preference.

Background: Subcutaneous lymphomas are a heterogeneous group of diseases with variable clinical behavior that ranges from a lymphoproliferative disorder to an aggressive cytotoxic lymphoma. Subcutaneous panniculitis-like T-cell lymphoma (SPTCL) is an uncommon, often indolent cutaneous lymphoma that localizes to the subcutaneous adipose tissue. These tumors exhibit an alpha/beta phenotype (abSPTCL). Primary cutaneous gamma-delta T-cell lymphoma (PCgdTCL) is a rare, highly aggressive lymphoma that frequently involves the subcutaneous adipose tissue. The goal of this study is to identify key inflammatory and oncogenic pathways in SPTCL and PCgdTCL to determine which mutational or expression patterns differentiate abSPTCL and PCgdTCL. A comprehensive catalog of cancer gene expression profiles generated via RNA sequencing on patient samples is essential to understand tumorigenesis and to develop effective therapies. Methods: We performed transcriptomic profiling analysis using RNA sequencing in lesional skin biopsies from patients of abSPTCL (n=10), PCgdTCL (n=9), and controls (n=5). Differential analyses were performed on the entire transcriptomic profiles among the 3 groups. Results: Although the transcriptomic profiles of abSPTCL and PCgdTCL samples had similarities, there were notable differences between these groups that may elucidate unique pathways that propagate each disease. In contrast to abSPTCL, PCgdTCL samples demonstrated upregulation of cell motility and proliferation, and downregulation of pathways involving apoptosis and tumor necrosis factor production. The most significantly upregulated gene pathways in both abSPTCL and PCgdTCL samples were those involving immune and inflammatory response, viral defense, type I interferon signaling, interferon-gamma-mediated signaling, and positive regulation of T cell proliferation. The most significantly downregulated gene pathways in the two groups were those involving cell adhesion, rRNA processing and translation, and extracellular matrix organization. The top 5 upregulated immune response and downregulated cell adhesion hub genes for abSPTCL highlighted by gene interaction network analysis included: TNF, CTLA4, CD86, IL10, CCR5 & ITGB5, ITGA8, VWF, APP, CDH5, respectively. Conclusion: Our transcriptomic profiling pinpoints disease-related enrichment pathways and gene functions in abSPTCL and PCgdTCL patients, which may shed light on molecular mechanisms that drive disease activity. Hub genes in abSPTCL represent potential drug targets for further development of novel therapies. Disclosures Mangold: Kirin:Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Elorac:Research Funding;Sun Pharma:Research Funding;MiRagen:Research Funding;Solagenix:Research Funding.

CCTG CLC.2/Alliance A041202 demonstrated superior progression-free survival at 2 years with ibrutinib alone (87%; HR 0.39) or ibrutinib-rituximab (IR 88%; HR 0.38) compared to chemo-immunotherapy with bendamustine-rituximab (BR 74%) in treatment-naïve patients (pts) with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who were 65 or older (Woyach NEJM 2018). We hypothesized that ibrutinib-based therapies would be more costly than BR but that costs would be offset by less toxicity and improved quality of life (QOL). We completed a prospective trial-based economic analysis to study the direct medical costs and quality-adjusted benefit associated with ibrutinib-based therapies compared to BR in the Canadian (CDN) subset of patients enrolled in CLC.2/Alliance 041202. All CDN pts were invited to participate in the companion analysis. Health utilities were collected using the EuroQOL EQ-5D and calculated using CDN population valuations (Bansback PLOS One 2012). Resource utilization forms were administered to collect off-protocol health care encounters. The planned analysis was a cost-utility analysis from the perspective of a public healthcare system, examining the costs and outcomes (quality-adjusted life years or QALYs) of ibrutinib-based therapy compared to BR. Unit costs were applied to resource data based on publicly available provincial/national databases; all costs were expressed in 2019 US dollars (1 CDN = 0.75 US dollar). Total and disaggregated direct medical costs are presented descriptively. Mean survival was calculated using the restricted mean survival method from randomization to the study time-horizon of 24 months; derived utilities were used to calculate QALYs. A discount rate for costs and benefits (r=0.05) was applied. The analysis was based on estimation (with bootstrapping) of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and/or direct medical costs. A total of 55 pts were enrolled; two pts who did not receive any treatment were censored at day 1 and 3 after randomization and excluded from analysis. Of the 53 analysed, pt demographics were well balanced between treatments and were reflective of the entire population: mean age was 71.6 (SD 6.34) in pts receiving ibrutinib alone (n=17), 72.2 (SD 3.85) in pts receiving IR (n=18), and 71.7 (SD 4.1) in pts receiving BR (n=18). A total of 3 pts, one in each arm, had 17p deletion. Progression-free survival at 2 years for CDN pts was 94% (95% CI 65-99%) for ibrutinib, 100% (95% CI 100-100%) for IR, and 72% (95% CI 45-87%) for BR (Figure 1). At 24 months, 1 pt on the BR arm had crossed over to ibrutinib (as per protocol); there was no overall survival difference between the three arms. On-protocol costs (including protocol treatment, ambulatory care, and imaging) and off-protocol costs (including hospitalizations, concomitant medications, and ambulatory care) are highlighted in Figure 2. On-protocol costs were higher for pts receiving ibrutinib (mean $142,001 USD; SD 48,417) and IR ($164,931; SD 46,208) compared to BR ($38,509; SD 10,351), driven by higher drug acquisition costs associated with ibrutinib (list price $6422 for 420mg/30 days). In contrast, off-protocol costs were modestly higher for pts on BR (mean $3050; SD 3812) compared to the ibrutinib ($2460; SD 3863) or IR ($2890; SD 4206); hospitalizations were the key off-protocol cost drivers and were highest for pts on IR and BR. Overall mean costs over the 2-year time horizon were $144,461 (SD 47,910) for pts on ibrutinib, $167,820 (SD 46,830) for pts on IR, and $41,560 (SD 11,849) for pts on BR. Discounted QALYs were similar between the three treatment arms: 1.66 (0.16) for ibrutinib alone, 1.65 (0.24) for IR, and 1.66 (0.17) for BR. Given the similar quality-adjusted survival between arms at the time of this analysis, a formal ICER was not calculated. Direct medical costs are substantially higher for pts receiving continuous ibrutinib-based therapies, compared to chemo-immunotherapy of fixed duration, in frontline CLL management; the key cost driver is the cost of ibrutinib. The PFS benefit with ibrutinib-based therapy has not translated into an advantage in quality-adjusted survival to date; further follow-up may be required to demonstrate any cost or QOL benefits associated with fewer progression events for those on ibrutinib. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; U10CA180863 and #704970 CCTG. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01886872 Figure Disclosures Owen: AbbVie, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Astrazeneca, Merck, Servier, Novartis, Teva: Honoraria. Lam:Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Crump:Servier: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Sperlich:Lundbeck Canada: Honoraria. Woyach:Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Morphosys, Karyopharm, Verastem, Abbvie, Lox: Research Funding; Janssen, Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Arqule: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company, AbbVie, Janssen, AstraZeneca, ArQule: Honoraria. Prica:astra zeneca: Honoraria; seattle genetics: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Hay:Roche: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding.

Introduction: Interleukin-1 receptor-associated kinase 4 (IRAK4) is essential for toll-like receptor (TLR) and interleukin-1 receptor (IL-1R) signaling in immune cells including B lymphocytes. It forms the Myddosome complex with the MYD88 adaptor protein, with IRAK4 being essential for downstream signaling, maximal activation of NFkB with inflammatory and immune response and tumor promotion [Treon 2012; Rhyasen 2015]. CA-4948 is a novel small molecule, oral inhibitor of IRAK4, first-in-class and only suppressor of the TLR pathway currently tested in hematological malignancies. When combined with the BTK inhibitor ibrutinib that blocks parallel BCR signaling and NF-kB activating pathway, it has shown synergy in in-vivo B-cell NHL models, providing strong rationale for clinical evaluation [Booher 2018]. Recent preclinical studies demonstrated the role of IRAK4 activation as a driver of secondary, adaptive tumor resistance and survival mechanisms of hematological and solid tumor malignancies [Melgar 2019] that could be blocked by CA-4948 to delay or reverse resistance. Study Design and Methods: This is a multicenter, open-label trial of oral CA-4948 combined with ibrutinib in adult patients with relapsed or refractory hematologic malignancies. (NCT03328078). It has 2 parts: a dose escalation (Part A2), and expansion basket of 4 cohorts (Part B). Part A2: Is a truncated 3+3 design: CA-4948 starting is 200 mg BID with subsequent escalation to 300 mg BID. Both dose are safe and active against NHL as seen in the nearly completed monotherapy Part A1 of this trial Patients will receive CA-4948 with ibrutinib at the labeled dose for the respective NHL subtype (560 mg or 420 mg) until toxicity or progression. Primary objectives are safety/tolerance (MTD, RP2D); 2nd objectives are pharmacokinetics and preliminary efficacy; exploratory objectives include biomarker correlations (e.g., MYD88-L265P mut, IRAK4 pathway, NFκB inhibition). Part B basket has four cohorts: 1 -MZL, 2 - ABC-DLBCL, 3 - PCNSL, and 4 - NHL with adaptive ibrutinib resistance. Cohorts 1-3 must be BTK-inhibitor naïve. Cohort 4 includes ibrutinib treated NHLs after developing adaptive, secondary resistance. All will receive the combination of ibrutinib and CA-4948. Cohort 4 patients will be allowed a <3 weeks gap since prior ibrutinib therapy. Primary objectives include CR or ORR and DOR compared to (matched) historical controls (closely matched if possible). 2nd objectives include tolerance/safety, PFS, and pop-PK sampling for CA-4948. Exploratory objectives; response correlation with biomarkers including MYD88-L265P or other genetic mutations, gene expressions, cell of origin, IRAK4 signaling, and resistance. Treatment: CA-4948 at RP2D+ibrubinib at labelled doses; 21-day cycles to be repeated in the absence of toxicity or progression. Samples sizes, statistical considerations: Approx. 18 patients in Part A2. In Part B, a Simon 2-Step design will be applied to each cohort. Early stopping rule for futility after approx. 20 patients in Stage 1: full accrual with Stage 2 will add about 25 patients. Successful signal efficacy identification in a cohort may support further expansion or a subsequent controlled trial. The safety population will include all patients in the study who received any test dose. The efficacy population will have a valid baseline and post-baseline disease assessment. Safety assessments include TEAEs, safety labs, vitals, physical exams, PK, and ECGs; efficacy assessments: tumor imaging, para-protein determination, and histo/cyto-morphologic examinations. Part A2 inclusion: Histopathologically confirmed B-cell NHL as per the WHO 2016 classification. Eligible NHL subtypes: FL, MZL, MCL, DLBCL (including extranodal lymphomas of leg, testicle, or other sites, excluding mediastinal lymphoma), CLL/SLL, primary or secondary CNS lymphoma, and WM/LPL. Patients with FL, MCL, MZL, WM/LPL, or CLL/SLL should meet clinical treatment criteria. Part B inclusion: Cohorts 1-3 include patients with MZL, ABC-DLBCL, or PCNSL who are BTK-inhibitor naïve. Cohort 4 will include ibrutinib pre-treated MCL, MZL, CLL/SLL, WM/LPL, ABC-DLBCL, or PCNSL with adaptive resistance. Exclusions for both Parts A2 and B: Significant acute or chronic toxicity from prior anti-cancer therapy that has not resolved to Grade ≤ 1, as determined by NCI CTCAE v 4.03 within 7 days prior to start of study or serious co-morbidities. Disclosures Nowakowski: NanoString: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Leslie:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; KitePharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Joffe:AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lunning:Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acrotech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Curis: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Aeratech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria. Patel:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Landsburg:Takeda: Research Funding; Triphase: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Curis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fenske:Medical College of Wisconsin: Current Employment. Ramchandren:Merck, Seattle Genetics, Janssen, Genentech: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Sandoz-Novartis, Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Skarbnik:Alexion: Consultancy; Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Speakers Bureau; CLL Society: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Tun:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acrotech: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding.

Introduction: Lymphoma is the most common cancer among adolescents and young adults (AYAs). We examined changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and its predictors in AYA patients (pts). Patients and Methods: We identified AYA pts (aged 18-39) enrolled 2002-2015 in a prospective cohort of pts with newly diagnosed lymphoma from the University of Iowa and Mayo Clinic Molecular Epidemiology Resource, part of the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes cohort. Enrollment could occur prior to or after initiation of treatment. We measured HRQoL using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) questionnaire at baseline, 12, and 24 months. FACT-G yields five HRQoL domain scores: emotional well-being (EWB), functional WB (FWB), physical WB (PWB), social/family WB (SFWB), and total FACT-G score (a sum of the domains). Pts completing <80% of the FACT-G questions were excluded. Linear mixed models with random subject intercepts estimated changes in FACT-G scores from baseline. The covariates in multivariate analysis were lymphoma subtype, stage, and treatment. Interaction effects between treatment (chemotherapy and/or radiation) and subtype were added to the model. We calculated effect sizes (ES) for the magnitude of mean change scores: 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 were considered small, medium, and large ESs, respectively. Only ESs for mean score differences with p<0.05 are reported. Results: We identified 467 pts; median age at diagnosis was 30 years, median follow up was 5.9 years. 53% of pts completed the baseline FACT-G assessment pre-treatment, 47% completed after treatment began. Pts assessed after treatment initiation had lower baseline total FACT-G (ES -0.25), FWB (ES -0.27), and PWB scores (-0.46); but baseline EWB was higher in pts assessed prior to treatment (ES 0.20). There was no association between HRQoL scores at baseline or over time and lymphoma subtype, stage, or treatment type, or interactions. Total FACT-G scores modestly improved over time, ES 0.32 at 1 year and ES 0.45 at 2 years after enrollment. EWB, FWB, and PWB also improved over time (ES 0.36, 0.44, 0.30 at 1 year; and 0.49, 0.56, 0.38 at 2 years, respectively). SFWB scores slightly worsened over time (ES -0.24 at 1 year and -0.12 at 2 years). Conclusions: AYA pts with lymphoma had higher baseline total FACT-G scores, FWB and PWB prior to therapy initiation compared to after initiation. HRQoL improved from diagnosis through the first 2 years after diagnosis, except for SFWB. Neither stage, lymphoma subtype, nor treatment type affected change in HRQoL. The lack of improvement in SFWB suggests social interventions and future studies should examine factors impacting SFWB in AYA pts. Disclosures Cohen: Genentech, BMS, Novartis, LAM, BioInvent, LRF, ASH, Astra Zeneca, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Janssen, Adicet, Astra Zeneca, Genentech, Aptitude Health, Cellectar, Kite/Gilead, Loxo: Consultancy. Flowers:Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas: Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; OptumRx: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Cerhan:BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding.

Abstract Objective: The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate the change in sexual function following treatment with fractional CO2 laser therapy in breast cancer (BC) survivors with genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). Methods: A single-arm feasibility study of BC survivors with symptoms of GSM, including dyspareunia and/or vaginal dryness, was conducted. Participants who received three treatments with fractional CO2 laser and 4-week follow-up were contacted for patient-reported outcomes and adverse events at 12 months. Sexual function was measured using the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) and Female Sexual Distress Scale Revised (FSDS-R). Descriptive statistics were calculated for patient demographics and disease characteristics for the set of participants who agreed to long-term follow-up and those who were lost to follow-up. FSFI and FSDS-R scores were summarized at baseline, 4 weeks and 12 months, as well as the change from baseline, and were compared using a Wilcoxon signed rank test. Results: A total of 67 BC survivors enrolled, 59 completed treatments and 4-week follow-up; 39 participated in the 12 month follow-up. The overall FSFI score improved from baseline to 4-week follow-up (median Δ 8.8 [Q1, Q3] (QS) (2.2, 16.7)], P < 0.001). There were improvements at 4 weeks in all domains of the FSFI (P < 0.001 for each) including desire (median Δ 1.2; QS [0.6, 1.8]), arousal (median Δ 1.2; QS [0.3, 2.7]), lubrication (median Δ 1.8 (0, 3.3), orgasm (median Δ 1.2; QS [0, 3.6]), satisfaction (median Δ 1.6 (0.4, 3.2)), and pain (median Δ 1.6 (0, 3.6). The FSDS-R score also improved from baseline to 4-week follow-up (median Δ −10.0; QS [−16, −5] P < 0.001) indicating less sexually related distress. The scores of the FSFI and FSDS-R remained improved at 12 months and there were no serious adverse events reported. Conclusions: In BC survivors with GSM, the total and individual domain scores of the FSFI and the FSDS-R improved after fractional CO2 laser therapy. Video Summary: http://links.lww.com/MENO/A711.

Introduction CA-4948 is a novel oral small molecule inhibitor of interleukin-1 receptor-associated kinase 4 (IRAK4). IRAK4 is part of the Myddosome signaling pathway, and is essential for signaling downstream of toll-like receptors (TLR) and the interleukin-1 receptor (IL-1R) family in immune cells including B lymphocytes. . Dysregulated signaling in these pathways is frequently observed in Non-Hodgkin Lymphomas (NHL), particularly in ABC-subtype of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) and Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM)[1]. Furthermore, IRAK4 activation has recently been identified as a driver of an adaptive resistance mechanism of malignancies [2]. CA-4948 is the first clinical candidate targeting IRAK4 to be evaluated in cancer patients. Here we present Phase I results of CA-4948 in patients with relapsed/refractory hematologic malignancies. Method CA-4948-101 is a phase I trial dose escalation trial with a 3 + 3 design. Seven dosing cohorts were assessed including 50 and 100 mg daily (QD), and 50, 100, 200, 300, or 400 mg twice daily (BID) continuous oral monotherapy in 21-day cycles. Objectives included safety and tolerance (primary), pharmacokinetic (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD) and early efficacy (secondary), and biomarker correlations (exploratory). As of July 2020, 30 patients with relapsed or refractory, NHL have been enrolled, including DLBCL (n=14), FL (n=6), transformed HGBL (n=1), WM (n=3), LPL (n=2), MZL (n=2) and MCL (n=2). Median age is 68.5 (range 50 - 87; 5 female / 25 male). Median number of prior treatments is 4 (range 1 - 8, incl. 5 CAR-T-cell or ASCT treatments). Results CA-4948 has been generally well tolerated. Eight patients were exposed at the highest dose level of 400 mg BID: 2 of 5 DLT-evaluable patients had Grade 3 rhabdomyolysis (DLTs), without complications and reversible after treatment interruption and hydration / analgesic treatment - both subsequently continued treatment at lower doses of 200 or 300 mg BID, respectively. Six patients have tolerated 300 mg BID well without DLT. Most non-hematologic TEAEs were Grade 1 or 2 and manageable, including diarrhea, vomiting, fatigue, dyspnea, and myalgia. Hematologic TEAEs including neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia was mild/moderate and without complications. There were only 4 Grade 3 combined episodes in 18 patients at dose levels ranging between 200 and 400 mg BID without complications (Table 1). Drug discontinuation occurred in only 3 cases for rash, fatigue, and asymptomatic amylase/lipase elevation at lower dose levels. No toxic deaths occurred. Favorable and predictable PK characteristics included rapid absorption with Tmax at 2-3 hours, T1/2 of 6 hours (supporting bid dosing), moderate accumulation, and dose-proportional increases in exposure. Dose proportional PD changes were shown for inflammatory cytokine reductions. Treatment duration ranged between 15 days and 19+ months with sustained disease control. Eight of 28 evaluable patients experienced overall tumor burden decreases of ≥20% from baseline - more at higher doses (Table 2). A WM patient with 6 prior lines of treatment, sustained PR underwent intra-patient dose escalation and had a dose/response relationship and very good treatment tolerance (Figure 1). The median duration at doses of 200 or 300 mg bid was &gt;6 months (range 1-19+; including 3 cases of 11, 14, and 19+ mo.). Downstream pharmacodynamic markers of IRAK4 and molecular characteristics including cell-of-origin will be presented. Conclusion CA-4948 demonstrates good safety profile, desirable pharmacokinetic properties, and preliminary clinical activity. Enrollment is ongoing to support the anticipated RP2D of 300 mg bid. These encouraging results provide clinical validation of IRAK4 as a viable, novel therapeutic target in B-cell malignancies will lead to clinical combinations with synergistic drugs including BTK or BCL2 inhibitors [3] in patients with advanced hematological malignancies. Clinical trial: NCT03328078. References: 1. Treon, S. P. et al., 2012. N Engl J Med, 367: 826-33 2. Melgar, K. et al., 2019. Sci Transl Med, 11: eaaw8828 3. Booher R, Grayson D., 2019. Waldenstrom Roadmap Symposium, www.Curis.com Disclosures Nowakowski: Curis: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Research Funding; Kymera: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Leslie:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; KitePharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Younes:Curis: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; HCM: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BioPath: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Current Employment. Lunning:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Curis: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Aeratech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Legend: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Acrotech: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Patel:Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Kite: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Landsburg:Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Curis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Triphase: Research Funding. Tun:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acrotech: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding.