Citations

Abstract Funding: Supported by National Cancer Institute grants U10CA180888, U10CA180819, U10CA180820, U10CA180821, U10CA180868, U10CA180863; and in part by Susan G. Komen for the Cure® Research Program, The Hope Foundation for Cancer Research, Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and Genomic Health, Inc. Acknowledgement: The authors wish to thank Dr. Ana M. Gonzalez-Angulo, MD, for her invaluable contributions to the design and implementation of this study. Background: The clinical utility of the RS to determine CT benefit is well established in pts with HR+, HER2-, axillary lymph node (LN)-negative BC. Retrospective analyses from SWOG S8814 support the potential prognostic and predictive role of RS for CT benefit in postmenopausal pts with LN+ BC. SWOG S1007 is a prospective, randomized trial of endocrine therapy (ET) vs. chemoendocrine therapy (CET) in women with 1-3 +LN and a RS < 25 (NCT01272037). Methods: Eligibility criteria included women > 18 years of age with HR+, HER2- BC and 1-3 +LN and no contraindications to taxane and/or anthracycline based CT. Women with a RS < 25 were randomized to receive ET or CET in 1:1 randomization using 3 stratification factors: (1) RS (0-13 vs.14-25); (2) menopausal status; and (3) axillary nodal dissection vs. sentinel node biopsy. The primary objective was to determine the effect of CT on invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and whether the effect depended on the RS. The primary analysis was to test for a significant interaction of the treatment arm and continuous RS using a Cox regression model for IDFS, adjusting for treatment, RS, and menopausal status. A total of 832 IDFS events were expected for the final analysis. Secondary objectives included overall survival (OS). The protocol specified that interaction between treatment and the stratification variables was to be tested and, if significant, separate analyses performed by stratum. Annual interim analyses were planned starting at 24% of events. At the third interim analysis with 410 IDFS events, the Data and Safety Monitoring Committee recommended reporting results, with a decision by the NCI’s Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, the study sponsor. Results: Of the 9,383 women screened from 2/28/11-9/29/17, 5,083 pts (54.2%) were randomized. With a median follow-up of 5.1 years, 447 IDFS events have been observed. For the primary analysis, the interaction test for CT benefit and continuous RS was not statistically significant, p=0.30. In a model with CT, RS, and menopausal status (no interaction term), higher continuous RS was associated with worse IDFS [HR 1.06, 2-sided p<0.001, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.04-1.07], and CT was associated with an improvement in IDFS (HR 0.81, p=0.026, 95% CI 0.67-0.98). In a pre-specified analysis, a significant interaction was identified between CT and menopausal status (p=0.004), necessitating separate analyses by menopausal status. In postmenopausal pts (N=3350, 67%), adjusting for continuous RS, the HR for CET vs. ET was not significant (HR=0.97, p=0.82, 95% CI 0.78-1.22; 5-year IDFS 91.6% vs. 91.9%) indicating no benefit from CT. In premenopausal pts (N=1665, 33%), the HR (0.54) was statistically significant (p=0.0004, 95% CI 0.38-0.76; 5-year IDFS 94.2% vs. 89.0%), indicating CT benefit. In premenopausal pts, ovarian suppression was performed in 15.9% vs. 3.7% (ET vs. CET), and 47.9% vs. 26.4% reported menstruation after 6 months of treatment. Although the number of events is limited, the HR for treatment adjusted by RS for OS in premenopausal pts was 0.47 (p=0.032, 95% CI 0.24-0.94). At this time, there is no differential effect with CT in regard to other stratification factors. Conclusions: There is a significant differential treatment effect of CT benefit based on RS for premenopausal vs. postmenopausal women requiring separate analyses. While only 54% of the protocol specified events are recorded and pts will be followed for 15 years, the current data show that adjuvant therapy can be de-escalated to ET alone in postmenopausal pts with a RS < 25 and 1-3 +LN. However, there is a strong IDFS benefit for CET in premenopausal pts, with an early indication of an OS improvement. Citation Format: Kevin Kalinsky, William E Barlow, Funda Meric-Bernstam, Julie R Gralow, Kathy S Albain, Daniel Hayes, Nancy Lin, Edith A Perez, Lori J Goldstein, Stephen Chia, Subkhbinder Dhesy-Thind, Priya Rastogi, Emilio Alba, Suzette Delaloge, Miguel Martín, Miguel Gil Gil, Claudia Arce-Salinas, Etienne Brain, In Hae Park, Jean-Yves Pierga, Ana Hernandez Lluch, Manuel Ramos Vasquez, Manuel Ruiz Borrego, Kyung Hae Jung, Jean-Marc Ferrero, Anne Schott, Steve Shak, Priyanka Sharma, Danika L Lew, Jieling Miao, Debu Tripathy, Gabriel Hortobagyi, Lajos Pusztai. First results from a phase III randomized clinical trial of standard adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) +/- chemotherapy (CT) in patients (pts) with 1-3 positive nodes, hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and HER2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer (BC) with recurrence score (RS) < 25: SWOG S1007 (RxPonder) [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 GS3-00.

Abstract Germline variation and smoking are independently associated with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). We conducted genome-wide smoking interaction analysis of PDAC using genotype data from four previous genome-wide association studies in individuals of European ancestry (7,937 cases and 11,774 controls). Examination of expression quantitative trait loci data from the Genotype-Tissue Expression Project followed by colocalization analysis was conducted to determine whether there was support for common SNP(s) underlying the observed associations. Statistical tests were two sided and P < 5 × 10–8 was considered statistically significant. Genome-wide significant evidence of qualitative interaction was identified on chr2q21.3 in intron 5 of the transmembrane protein 163 (TMEM163) and upstream of the cyclin T2 (CCNT2). The most significant SNP using the Empirical Bayes method, in this region that included 45 significantly associated SNPs, was rs1818613 [per allele OR in never smokers 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82–0.93; former smokers 1.00, 95% CI, 0.91–1.07; current smokers 1.25, 95% CI 1.12–1.40, Pinteraction = 3.08 × 10–9). Examination of the Genotype-Tissue Expression Project data demonstrated an expression quantitative trait locus in this region for TMEM163 and CCNT2 in several tissue types. Colocalization analysis supported a shared SNP, rs842357, in high linkage disequilibrium with rs1818613 (r2 = 0. 94) driving both the observed interaction and the expression quantitative trait loci signals. Future studies are needed to confirm and understand the differential biologic mechanisms by smoking status that contribute to our PDAC findings. Significance: This large genome-wide interaction study identifies a susceptibility locus on 2q21.3 that significantly modified PDAC risk by smoking status, providing insight into smoking-associated PDAC, with implications for prevention.

Dry blood spots (DBS) offer many advantages over other blood banking protocols due to the reduction of time and equipment needed for collection and the ease of processing, storage, and shipment. In addition, the sample size makes it a very attractive method when considering the banking of small pediatric samples. On that note, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) preanalytical standards for DBS are commonly used in the worldwide mass spectrometry-based inborn errors of metabolism screening programs. However, these guidelines may not apply for analytes and protocols not included in these programs. In fact, the availability of leftover samples and the ongoing interest in protocols outside this scenario are providing us with new DBS biobanking insights. Herein, we review the literature for indicators that should be considered in the design of prospective fit for purpose DBS biobanks, especially for those focused mostly on pediatric and OMIC platforms.

Background: Patient information is critical in shared decision-making and patient-centred management for neuroendocrine tumours (NETs). Most adults search the internet for health issues, with over half considering such information to be credible. Therefore, we evaluated the quality of online information on NETs. Methods: Searching for “Neuroendocrine Tumours”, the top 20 websites from Google and top 10 from Yahoo and Bing were identified. Open-access websites written in English were included. Websites indicated as advertisements or directed towards healthcare providers were excluded. Each website was evaluated using the JAMA benchmarks, DISCERN instrument, and the Health on the Internet (HONCode) seal by two independent reviewers. Results: We included 16 unique websites after removing duplicates. Four were education pages from healthcare institutions, 10 were Cancer Society pages, and 2 were general information pages. The average score for JAMA benchmarks was 2.3, with 19% of websites receiving the highest score of 4. Specifically, 31% met the benchmark for authorship, 69% for attribution, 94% for disclosure, and 44% for currency. The average score for the DISCERN instrument was 46.5, with no website achieving the maximum of 80 points. The HONCode seal was present in 3 out of 16 websites (18%). Conclusions: We identified major issues with the quality of online information for NETs using validated instruments. The majority of websites identified through common search engines are low-quality. Patients should be informed of the limited quality of online information on NETs. High-quality online information is needed to ensure that patients can avoid misinformation and actively participate in their care.

Abstract Context. —Bioelectronic sensors, which combine microchip and biological components, are an emerging technology in clinical diagnostic testing. An electronic detection platform using DNA biochip technology (eSensor) is under development for molecular diagnostic applications. Owing to the novelty of these devices, demonstrations of their successful use in practical diagnostic applications are limited. Objective. —To assess the performance of the eSensor bioelectronic method in the validation of 6 Epstein-Barr virus–transformed blood lymphocyte cell lines with clinically important mutations for use as sources of genetic material for positive controls in clinical molecular genetic testing. Two cell lines carry mutations in the CFTR gene (cystic fibrosis), and 4 carry mutations in the HFE gene (hereditary hemochromatosis). Design. —Samples from each cell line were sent for genotype determination to 6 different molecular genetic testing facilities, including the laboratory developing the DNA biochips. In addition to the bioelectronic method, at least 3 different molecular diagnostic methods were used in the analysis of each cell line. Detailed data were collected from the DNA biochip output, and the genetic results were compared with those obtained using the more established methods. Results. —We report the successful use of 2 applications of the bioelectronic platform, one for detection of CFTR mutations and the other for detection of HFE mutations. In all cases, the results obtained with the DNA biochip were in concordance with those reported for the other methods. Electronic signal output from the DNA biochips clearly differentiated between mutated and wild-type alleles. This is the first report of the use of the cystic fibrosis detection platform. Conclusions. —Bioelectronic sensors for the detection of disease-causing mutations performed well when used in a “real-life” situation, in this case, a validation study of positive control blood lymphocyte cell lines with mutations of public health importance. This study illustrates the practical potential of emerging bioelectronic DNA detection technologies for use in current molecular diagnostic applications.

Background: Clinical trials are critical to drug development and the formulation of evidence-based guidelines which are essential to providing crucial and often life-saving treatment to cancer patients. Clinical trial participation is very poor in the United States overall, with a dismal representation of racial minorities. While this has been a focus of several efforts focused on education, targeted enrollment etc., there is a lack of understanding of the patient's knowledge and preferences, and how that may be shaping their decision to consider participation in clinical trials. We undertook a patient-reported survey to explore these factors and understand any underlying disparities. Methods: A 15-question paper-based anonymous questionnaire addressing the cancer patient's knowledge about their disease and clinical trials, as well as factors that may shape their understanding of, or may be barriers to their participation in clinical trials was used. This was administered to adult patients with lymphoid malignancies at the Mayo Clinic in Florida. Categorical and continuous variables between white and minority respondents were compared using the Chi-square test and U Mann Whitney with a significance level of 0.05. Results: The survey was completed by 203 cancer patients. Of these, 3 patients did not report race and ethnicity and so responses from 200 patients were included in the final analysis. Of the respondents, 73% (n=146) were white and 27% (n=54) were minorities. Whites were older than minorities, although not statistically significant (median 67 vs. 61.5 yrs, p=0.06). Minority patients had lower education level with 41% having ≤high school education as compared to 16% whites (p<0.001). Majority of white patients (53%) reported their physicians as the highest ranked source of information for cancer vs. 33% minority patients (p=0.01). Other sources of information explored were internet, nurses, family/friends, books/flyers or other patients. A higher number of white patients reported treatment and its side effects to be the topic of most importance to them at the time of cancer diagnosis as compared to minorities (33% vs. 15%, p=0.01). Similarly, prognosis was more important for a higher number of whites than minorities (21% vs. 15%, p=0.03). Understanding of the diagnosis and financial impact were also explored but not found to have any significant difference. Understanding their treatment and long-term treatment plan was the most frequent knowledge gap reported by whites (81%) vs. minorities (54%, p=0.004). Minorities had several knowledge gap areas (understanding the diagnosis, treatment, side effects, long-term treatment plan, financial impact, survival) more evenly distributed. Regarding clinical trials, minorities were more likely to agree that clinical trials were of benefit for patients (42% vs. 28%, p=0.05) and that in a clinical trial the experimental drug always works better than the one it is being compared to (65% vs. 38%, p<0.001). Minority patients were less likely to agree to participating in clinical trials just based on their doctor's recommendation and judgement (83% vs. 93%, p=0.03). A higher number of minority patients felt that pharmaceutical companies have a big influence on the result of a clinical trial (83% vs. 65%, p=0.01). Fear of not benefiting from clinical trials was the reason for not participating among a higher number of whites (36% vs. 19%, p=0.02) while minorities more frequently reported fear of being a guinea pig (22% vs. 14%) and fear of financial burden (17% vs. 8%) although these were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Racial disparities exist at various aspects of cancer-related knowledge resources, gaps and needs. Minorities have more widespread knowledge gaps and depend on more resources for cancer-related knowledge, which may affect their clinical trial participation and preferences. There appears to be mistrust and misinformation guiding minority patient's understanding, leading to more widespread fears of clinical trials. Knowledge gaps and misinformation needs to be addressed in order to achieve higher participation in clinical trials in general, and among minority patients in particular. Disclosures Manochakian: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Guardant health: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novocure: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ailawadhi:Phosplatin: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria.

Introduction: Daratumumab (D) is an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, used frequently in combination with immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), lenalidomide (Len) and pomalidomide (Pom). There are no studies comparing DRd to DPd in Len-exposed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). We present the Mayo Clinic experience of DPd and DRd utilization and outcomes. Methods: We identified consecutive MM pts who received D, between 1/2015 and 4/2019 at Mayo Clinic. We included pts who were exposed (at least one full cycle, 21/28 days) or refractory (progression on full dose or maintenance Len during treatment or within 60 days of stopping Len) to Len prior to D and received 1 to 4 prior lines of therapy. Only Pts who received DRd and DPd were included. Results: Out of 411 evaluable pts 162 met the inclusion criteria; 67 were Len exposed, but not refractory and 95 were Len refractory. Pts' characteristics are shown in Table 1. DRd was used in 76 (47%) and DPd in 86 (53%) pts. Majority of pts (105; 65%) received DPd or DRd in the 2nd or 3rd line and 104 pts (64%) are still alive. In Len refractory pts, the median time from last dose of Len to D initiation was 1 mths (interquartile range 0-6.5). Seventy pts (43%) had high-risk cytogenetics (HR). Only 11 pts (7%) underwent autologous hematopoietic cell transplant after DPd or DRd regimen. There was no significant difference between pts who received DRd and DPd in terms of age (>65 years), gender, race, proportion exposed or refractory to Bortezomib, number of prior lines of treatment (>2), or HR status (p>0.05 for all). Pts who received DPd were 4 times more likely to be Len refractory compared to pts who received DRd, p=0.0008. Median follow up time for the whole cohort from initial diagnosis was 92 mths (CI 95%; 79.5-107), while from D start date was 30 mths (CI 95%; 27-34). Median PFS for the whole cohort was 21 mths (CI 95%; 15-25) and median OS was 138 mths (CI 95%; 111-193). In Len exposed but not refractory pts, n=67, the overall response rate (ORR) was 82% in the DRd group compared to 68% in the DPd group, p=0.2. There was no difference in median PFS; 25.5 mths (CI 95%; 23-NR) for DRd compared to 25 mths (CI 95%; 5-NR) for DPd, p=0.37. Similarly, there was no difference in median OS for DRd compared to DPd; NR mths (CI 95%; 138-NR) and 145.5 mths (CI 95%; 70-NR), respectively, p=0.06. In the 48 Len exposed but refractory pts who received DRd or DPd in 2nd or 3rd line, there was no difference in median PFS; 39 mths (CI 95%; 23-NR) for DRd compared to 21 mths (CI 95%; 3-NR) for DPd, p=0.11. Similarly, there was no difference in median OS for DRd compared to DPd; NR mths (CI 95%; NR-NR) and 145.5 mths (CI 95%; 36-NR), respectively, p=0.13. In Len refractory pts only, n=95, the ORR was 84% in the DRd group compared to 58% in the DPd group, p=0.009. There was no difference in median PFS; 25 mths (CI 95%; 13-32) for DRd compared to 9 mths (CI 95%; 5-15) for DPd, p=0.18. Similarly, there was no difference in median OS for DRd compared to DPd; 103 mths (CI 95%; 78-NR) and 106 mths (CI 95%; 66-183), respectively, p=0.5. In the 57 Len refractory pts who received DRd or DPd in 2nd or 3rd line, there was no difference in median PFS; 25 mths (CI 95%; 13-32) for DRd compared to 13 mths (CI 95%; 5-NR) for DPd, p=08. Similarly, there was no difference in median OS for DRd compared to DPd; 103 mths (CI 95%; 69-NR) and 105 mths (CI 95%; 47-NR), respectively, p=0.35. In the 16 Len exposed but not refractory pts with HR MM who received DRd or DPd in 2nd or 3rd line, the median PFS was better in the DRd group; 24.4 mths (CI 95%; 12-NR) compared to 3.3 mths (CI 95%; 1.9-27.5) for DPd, p=0.0093. However, there was no difference in median OS for DRd compared to DPd; NR mths (CI 95%; 51-NR) and NR mths (CI 95%; 18-NR), respectively, p=0.13. In the 29 Len refractory pts with HR MM who received DRd or DPd in 2nd or 3rd line, there was no statistically significant difference in median PFS; 18 mths (CI 95%; 6-43) for DRd compared to 6 mths (CI 95%; 4-13) for DPd, p=0.22.Similarly, there was no difference in median OS for DRd compared to DPd; 103 mths (CI 95%; 47-NR) and 53 mths (CI 95%; 26-105), respectively, p=0.2. Conclusions: D+IMiD regimens after prior Len exposure/refractoriness are commonly used in real-world, despite the lack of data from prospective clinical trials. Combining D with IMiDs in Len exposed or refractory pts is efficacious, whether the IMiD is Len or Pom. Our study shows that regardless of prior Len use, DRd is at least equivalent to DPd. Prospective studies should be done to confirm these observations. Disclosures Alhaj Moustafa: Acrotech: Consultancy. Larsen:Janssen Oncology: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kapoor:Janssen: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding. Fonseca:Amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Aduro: Consultancy; OncoTracker: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dingli:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Millenium: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy. Ailawadhi:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Phosplatin: Research Funding.

Abstract Sporadic late‐onset nemaline myopathy (SLONM) associated with monoclonal protein (MP) is a rare disease with an aggressive, and often fatal course. Whether SLONM + MP represents a malignancy or dysimmune disease remains unclear. Currently, two main approaches are used to treat SLONM + MP: nonchemotherapy‐based treatment (immunosuppression, intravenous immunoglobulins, plasmapheresis and plasma exchange) or chemotherapy with or without autologous stem cell transplantation. Due to the rare occurrence of the disease, the best treatment modality is unknown. We analyzed treatment and outcomes in a large cohort of 53 patients with SLONM + MP: four our own patients and 49 cases from published literature. Neurological improvement in the nonchemotherapy group (N = 25) was observed in 52% of patients: 8% reached marked improvement, 8% moderate response, 36% mild response; none reached complete remission (CR). In the chemotherapy group (N = 28), neurological improvement was seen in 86% of patients: 46% reached CR, 25% marked response, 11% moderate response and 4% mild response. The best neurological improvement correlated with deep hematological remission. Mean time to best response in the chemotherapy group was 8 months versus 21 months in the nonchemotherapy group ( P < .001). Overall survival was higher in patients in the chemotherapy group. A chemotherapy approach should be the preferred treatment for patients with SLOMN + MP with the goal to reach complete hematologic remission. Based on the clinical, morphological peculiarities, aggressive disease course and superior clinical benefits of chemotherapy over nonchemotherapy, SLONM + MP should be considered as a hematological malignancy with the presence of MP of clinical rather than undetermined significance.

Abstract This International Consensus Classification and Nomenclature for the congenital bicuspid aortic valve condition recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valves: 1. The fused type (right-left cusp fusion, right-non-coronary cusp fusion and left-non-coronary cusp fusion phenotypes); 2. The 2-sinus type (latero-lateral and antero-posterior phenotypes); and 3. The partial-fusion (forme fruste) type. The presence of raphe and the symmetry of the fused type phenotypes are critical aspects to describe. The International Consensus also recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valve-associated aortopathy: 1. The ascending phenotype; 2. The root phenotype; and 3. Extended phenotypes.