Citations

The NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer include up-to-date guidelines for clinical management of patients with carcinoma in situ, invasive breast cancer, Paget disease, phyllodes tumor, inflammatory breast cancer, male breast cancer, and breast cancer during pregnancy. These guidelines are developed by a multidisciplinary panel of representatives from NCCN Member Institutions with breast cancer–focused expertise in the fields of medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, pathology, reconstructive surgery, and patient advocacy. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the most recent updates to recommendations for adjuvant systemic therapy in patients with nonmetastatic, early-stage, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship are intended to help healthcare professionals working with cancer survivors to ensure that each survivor’s complex and varied needs are addressed. The Guidelines provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for consequences of adult-onset cancer and its treatment; recommendations to help promote healthful lifestyle behaviors, weight management, and immunizations in survivors; and a framework for care coordination. This article summarizes the recommendations regarding employment and return to work for cancer survivors that were added in the 2021 version of the NCCN Guidelines.

Abstract Leukemia relapse and treatment related mortality (TRM) remain major obstacles for successful allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT). The number of induction cycles using intensive chemotherapy at AML diagnosis to achieve complete remission (CR) and the number of consolidation cycles and disease status at the time of allo-HCT for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) may each affect TRM and relapse rates. We investigated the impact of the number of induction/consolidation cycles and disease status on the success of allo-HCT in 3113 AML patients reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) (2008-2019). They received allo-HCT in first CR or with persistent leukemia (primary induction failure-PIF) receiving myeloablative (MA) or reduced-intensity (RIC) conditioning. 1473 AML patients (median age, 47 years) in CR received MAC; 862 (58%) achieved CR after 1 cycle of intensive induction chemotherapy and 74% of these had no evidence of measurable residual disease (MRD). 454 (31%) patients required 2 cycles to CR (72 % MRD negative) and 157 (11%) patients (69% MRD negative) after ≥ 3 cycles. The overall survival (OS), relapse and TRM by induction cycle number is shown in Table 1. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that CR after 1 cycle led to higher OS vs. 2 cycles (HR 1.32 95%CI 1.11-1.56, p< 0.01) or ≥ 3 cycles (HR 1.47 95%CI 1.16-1.87, p< 0.01), while OS after 2 cycles or ≥ 3 cycles were similar (HR 1.2 95%CI 0.87-1.4, p=0.38). Higher TRM was observed in patients receiving 2 or ≥ 3 cycles vs. only 1 induction cycles (HR 1.34 95%CI 1.05-1.72, p< 0.02). Relapse risk was greater in those needing ≥ 3 cycles to achieve CR. Consolidation therapy after CR was associated with improved OS vs. no consolidation therapy (HR 1.57 95%CI 1.24-1.99, p< 0.01). The need for ≥2 induction cycles plus consolidation therapy was associated with higher TRM (HR 1.34 95%CI 1.05-1.72, p< 0.02). 1162 AML patients (median age, 63 years) in CR received allo-HCT after RIC; 714 (61%) achieved CR after 1 cycle of induction chemotherapy (72% MRD negative); 310 (27%) patients after 2 cycles (67% MRD negative) and 138 (12%) patients (58% MRD negative) after ≥ 3 cycles (Table 1). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the number of induction cycles did not affect the OS or TRM. Relapse risk was greater in patients requiring ≥2 cycles to achieve CR. The use of consolidation therapy did not affect OS or TRM. MRD status at the time of allo-HCT did not have a significant impact on OS, TRM and relapse rates after either MA or RIC conditioning. 478 AML patients received allo-HCT after PIF (328 patients with MAC [median age, 51 years], 150 patients RIC [median age, 61 years], Table 1). After MAC, OS and relapse were significantly worse in PIF patients compared to any CR patients (p<0.01). After RIC, relapse was significantly more frequent in PIF patients vs. CR patients after 1 or more induction cycles (p<0.01). TRM was similar for PIF vs CR patients after MAC or RIC allo-HCT. These data demonstrate that among patients eligible for allo-HCT, the need for only one induction cycle to achieve CR, particularly when combined with consolidation therapy is associated with better outcomes after MA conditioning. Achieving CR prior to allo-HCT needing one or more induction cycles is associated with lower relapse rates and improved OS compared to patients with PIF that receive allo-HCT. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures de Lima: BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Miltenyi Biotec: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hourigan: Govt. COI: Other. Litzow: Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Pluristem: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Saber: Govt. COI: Other. Weisdorf: Incyte: Research Funding; Fate Therapeutics: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Outcomes of patients with relapsed/refractory AML (RR-AML) have remained poor. Therapy with venetoclax based combinations in this setting leads to CR/CRi rates of 21-49% (DiNardo CD et al. Am J Hematol 2018, Aldoss I et al. Haematologica 2018, Stahl M et al. Blood Adv 2020). Preclinical studies with BCL-2 inhibitors indicate potential mechanisms of drug resistance including overexpression of the anti-apoptotic protein MCL-1 (Konopleva et al. Cancer Cell. 2006). Pevonedistat is a first in class inhibitor of Nedd8 activating enzyme that induces the pro-apoptotic protein NOXA leading to neutralization of MCL-1 and apoptosis. Preclinical studies evaluating the combination of pevonedistat and venetoclax against AML cell lines have demonstrated a synergistic effect (Knorr KL et al. Cell Death Differ. 2015). Hence, we designed a phase I study to assess the safety and tolerability of adding pevonedistat to the combination of azacitidine and venetoclax in patients with RR-AML. Study design and methods: We conducted a phase I study with the combination of pevonedistat, venetoclax and azacitidine in patients with RR-AML. Patients aged 18 years or above with morphologically documented RR-AML, ECOG performance status 0-2 and adequate organ function were eligible. Major exclusion criteria were isolated extramedullary relapse, hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) within 100 days of enrollment, and active acute GVHD. Previous therapy with hypomethylating agents (HMA) or venetoclax was not an exclusion criterion. The dose escalation phase was conducted using 3+3 design. Treatment included azacitidine (75 mg/m 2 daily x 7 days), venetoclax (400 mg daily x 28 days), and pevonedistat in escalating doses (10-20 mg/m 2 IV days 1,3,5 of each cycle) with a cycle length of 28 days. Pevonedistat was given at 10 mg/m 2 dose in cohort 1, 15 mg/m 2 dose in cohort 2 and 20 mg/m 2 dose in cohort 3. The primary endpoint is to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and toxicity profile of pevonedistat, azacitidine and venetoclax. Other endpoints included determination of response rates, duration of response, survival, pharmacokinetics, correlation of response rates with AML genomic profile, correlation of pretreatment levels of BCL2, BCLXL, MCL1, BAX or BAK with response, determination of changes in NOXA (PMAIP1) mRNA and protein expression pre-and post-pevonedistat treatment, evaluation of BH3 mimetic profiling on bone marrow samples by flow cytometry and assessing the sensitivity of leukemia and leukemic stem/progenitor cells to pevonedistat ex vivo. Results: Thirteen patients participated in the dose escalation phase, 12 of whom were evaluable. Median age was 69 years (61-91), 30.8% had secondary/therapy related AML, 69.2% with adverse risk disease, 53.8% previously received venetoclax/HMA and 23.1% had relapse after prior allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) (Table 1). Seven patients were enrolled into cohort 1 (pevonedistat 10 mg/m 2 dose) of which one was not evaluable, three patients enrolled into cohort 2 (pevonedistat 15 mg/m 2 dose), and three patients enrolled into cohort 3 (pevonedistat 20 mg/m 2 dose). Grade 3 or higher AEs included febrile neutropenia (23%), infection (15%), anemia (38%), neutropenia (54%), thrombocytopenia (38%). There was 1 dose limiting toxicity (DLT) in cohort 1 (atrial fibrillation) that triggered cohort expansion. However, subsequent patients did not experience DLT despite planned dose escalation. Of the 12 evaluable total patients, CR/CRi was observed in 5 (41.6%) patients. Notably, patients with RR-AML who were venetoclax/HMA naïve had a CR/CRi 83.3% (5/6 patients). The response rates for each cohort are summarized in Table 2. Three of the five patients with CR/CRi (60%) achieved MRD negativity by flow cytometry. Four patients who achieved CR/CRi proceeded to allogeneic HCT after therapy. Median OS of the cohort was 5.4 months (1.8-14) and median OS was not reached in patients with CR/CRi. Conclusions: The addition of pevonedistat to venetoclax and azacitidine backbone is safe and well tolerated in patients with RR-AML. Dose escalation yielded encouraging efficacy in venetoclax/HMA naïve RR-AML patients. The study is currently in the dose expansion phase. Details on correlative studies examining mechanisms of therapeutic efficacy and resistance will be reported in the main meeting. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Guru Murthy: Cardinal health: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Other: Advisory board meeting; DAVA Oncology: Honoraria; CancerExpertNow: Honoraria; Qessential: Honoraria; Techspert: Consultancy; Curio Sciences: Honoraria; Guidepoint: Consultancy. Abedin: AltruBio: Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Pfizer: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria; Actinium: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma Inc.: Research Funding. Litzow: Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Pluristem: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Atallah: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Activation of extracellular-signal regulated kinase (ERK) is almost universal in histiocytic disorders and is driven by genomic alterations in the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) and phosphoinositide 3-kinases (PI3K) pathways. While BRAFV600E mutations are well described in histiocytic disorders, less is known about BRAF fusions. The goal of our study is to describe the frequency and clinical characteristics of patients harboring BRAF fusions. Methods: We included patients with a diagnosis of histiocytic disorder seen at our institution from November 2016-June 2021. Only those who had adequate BRAF testing were included. The following were considered adequate BRAF testing: 1) unequivocally positive BRAF V600E immunostain with or without molecular confirmation; 2) successful multigene next generation sequencing (mostly Tempus â or FoundationOne â) if BRAF V600Eimmunostain was equivocal or negative. We also searched the literature for similar cases and compared BRAF fusions found in histiocytic disorders to those found in solid tumors and other hematologic conditions. Results: One hundred and twenty-six patients were included in this study. BRAF fusions were detected in 7 (6%) patients. The median follow-up for these patients was 1.4 years (95% CI: 0.4-not reached). The frequency according to disease subtypes is as follows: Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD; 2/46 [4%]), Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH; 1/41 [2%]), adult or juvenile xanthogranuloma (AXG/JXG; 4/7 [57%]), and histiocytic or Langerhans cell sarcoma (HS/LCS; 0/9 [0%]). The median age at diagnosis for our study cohort was 34 years (range, 7-81 years) and 5 were females. The clinical characteristics and nature of BRAF fusions of our 7 patients plus additional 13 cases from the literature are shown in Table 1. For the final cohort of 20 patients with BRAF-fusions, the median age was 16 years (range, 0.5-81 years) and most (56%) were females. The distribution by histiocytic subtypes is as follows: AXG/JXG (45%), LCH (40%), ECD (10%), HS/LCS (5%). Two patients received cobimetinib as frontline treatment in our cohort and achieved partial responses. Of these two patients, one completed 12 cycles (12 months) of cobimetinib and had a sustained PR while the other patient received 2 cycles before having to hold therapy due to intolerable adverse effects despite dose reduction. From literature review, another patient (LR-12) received cobimetinib as second line treatment and achieved complete response. We found 15 unique BRAF gene fusions with 4 being recurrent. Except for AGAP3-BRAF, none of these BRAF fusions in histiocytosis has been reported in solid tumors or hematologic conditions to date. Conclusions: BRAF gene fusions occur rarely (<5%) in histiocytic disorders. The only exception is AXG/JXG where more than half of the patients harbor BRAF gene fusions. These gene fusions are mostly distinct to histiocytosis and not found in solid tumors or other hematologic conditions. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Bennani: Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kymera: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board.

Abstract Background: Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD) is characterized by multi-organ infiltration of clonal histiocytes bearing activating mutations predominantly in the MAPK pathway. The diagnosis of ECD is clinico-pathologic; histopathologic findings alone are often non-specific. Characteristic pathognomonic finding of ECD is the symmetric osteosclerosis of the distal femur and proximal tibia/fibula, seen in >90% of cases, and referred to herein as classic ECD (C-ECD). There is a paucity of data on the phenotypic and mutational differences between C-ECD and non-classic ECD (NC-ECD). Determining phenotypic patterns may allow for earlier suspicion and diagnosis. Methods: Patients who met the revised ECD criteria proposed by Haroche J et al (Blood 2020;135:1311-1318) and had full body imaging that included the lower legs (18-FDG-PET/CT or CT/bone scan) were included. ECD diagnosis was made when >1 major criteria plus >1 minor criteria were present. Major criteria: 1) symmetric meta-diaphyseal osteosclerosis in legs; 2) "hairy kidneys"; "coated aorta", right atrial pseudotumor, xanthelasma, exophthalmos; or osteosclerosis of paranasal sinuses. Minor criteria: 1) histologic finding of typical foamy histiocytes (CD68+/CD163+/CD1a-) associated with fibrosis; 2) mutation/gene fusion of BRAF, CSF1R, or MAPK/PI3K pathways. We compared the organ involvement and BRAF V600Emutational status between C-ECD and NC-ECD. Results: A total of 105 patients were included. The median age at diagnosis was 57 years (range, 38-81) and most were males (62%). Majority had 18-FDG-PET/CT (83%) and BRAF V600E testing (65%). The main organ systems involved were skeletal (83%), renal (64%), adrenal (44%), and pulmonary (42%). Central diabetes insipidus (DI), "hairy kidneys", and "coated aorta" were present in 27 (26%), 54 (51%), and 44 (42%) patients, respectively. Among those tested, BRAF V600E mutation was found in 48/67 (72%) by immunohistochemistry. In our cohort, most patients (n=87. 83%) had C-ECD. NC-ECD had significantly lower number of organs/systems involved compared with C-ECD (median 3 vs 6, p=0.002). C-ECD had significantly higher rates of involvement of paranasal sinuses (51%/7%, p=0.002), DI (26%/0%, p=0.02), and similar rates of lung (44%/43%), cardiac (34%/14%), and skin (14%14%) involvement when compared to NC-ECD. BRAF V600E was significantly more common in C-ECD (88%/30%, p=0.004). Thirty-nine (37%) patients underwent next generation sequencing, of whom 33 (31%) had successful testing. In C-ECD, 3 patients had mutations other than BRAF V600E, these included: NRAS, MAP2K1, and MEF2C-FLT3 fusion. In NC-ECD, 5 patients had mutations other than BRAF V600E, these included: MAP2K1, KRAS, and NF1. Conclusions: Our study suggests distinct differences in clinical presentation and molecular findings exist between C-ECD and NC-ECD. C-ECD has a higher degree of organ involvement and harbor BRAF V600E more frequently than NC-ECD. Further analysis of histopathologic findings and outcomes in this cohort may provide insights into these ECD subsets that can optimize future management of this disease. Figure 1: Sites of involvement of classical Erdheim-Chester Disease (C-ECD) versus non-classical Erdheim-Chester Disease (NC-ECD) Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Vassallo: Bristol-Myers-Squibb: Research Funding; Sun Pharma.: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Tobin: Mayo Clinic Center for MS and Autoimmune Neurology: Research Funding; Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; National Institutes of Health: Research Funding. Bennani: Verastem: Other: Advisory Board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board.

Abstract Introduction: Multiple studies have demonstrated that diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) can be divided into subgroups based on their biology. However, these biological subgroups overlap clinically. While R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) remains the standard of care for treating patients with DLBCL, predicting which patients will not benefit from such therapy is important so that alternative therapy or clinical trials can be considered. Most of the studies stratifying patients select biomarkers first, then explore how these biomarkers can stratify patients based on outcome. We explored the potential of using machine learning to first group patients with DLBCL based on survival, then isolating the biomarkers necessary for predicting these survival subgroups. Methods: RNA was extracted from tissue paraffin blocks from 379 R-CHOP treated patients with de novo DLBCL, and from 247 patients with extranodal DLBCL. A targeted hybrid capture RNA panel of 1408 genes was used for next generation sequencing (NGS). Sequencing was performed using an Illumina NextSeq 550 System platform. Ten million reads per sample in a single run were required, and the read length was 2 × 150 bp. An expression profile was generated from the sequencing coverage profile of each individual sample using Cufflinks. A machine learning system was developed to classify patients into four groups based on their overall survival. This machine learning approach based on Naïve Bayesian algorithm was also used to discover the relevant subset of genes with which to classify patients into each of the four survival groups. To eliminate the underflow problem commonly associated with the standard Naïve Bayesian classifiers, we applied Geometric Mean Naïve Bayesian (GMNB) as the classifier to predict the survival group for each patient. Results: Using machine learning, patients were first divided into two groups: short survival (S) and long survival (L). To refine this model, we used the same approach and divided the patients in each group into two subgroups, generating four groups: long survival in the long group (LL), short survival in the long group (LS), long survival in the short group (SL), and short survival in the short group (SS). The hazard ratio for this model was 0.174 (confidence interval: 0.120-0.251), and P-value <0.0001. After defining these four groups, a machine learning algorithm was used to discover the biomarkers from the expression data of the 1408 genes from NGS data. To reduce the effects of noise and avoid overfitting, we employed a 12-step cross validation to obtain a robust measure. For an individual gene, a generalized Naïve Bayesian classifier was constructed on the training of one of the 12 subsets and tested on the other 11 testing subsets. This allowed us to limit the prediction process to 60 genes for each separation step. Using the selected biomarkers, we classified the patients in the original set (379 patients) into LL, LS, SL, and SS groups and then evaluated the survival pattern of these groups. As shown in Fig. 1A, the selected biomarkers predicted survival as expected in the overall survival groups prior to biomarker selection. For additional validation of the system, we used the selected biomarkers to classify a completely new set of 247 samples of patients with extranodal DLBCL. As shown in Fig. 1B, these selected biomarkers successfully predicted the overall survival in this group of patients with an HR of 0.530 (confidence interval: 0.234-1.197, P=0.005). This classification correlated with cell of origin classification, TP53 mutation status, MYC expression, and IRF4 expression. However, in a multivariate analysis, only TP53 mutation was independent in predicting prognosis (P=0.005) and age (below or over 60) (P=0.01) along with the survival grouping (P<0.000001). Conclusions: Using a novel machine learning approach with the expression levels of 180 genes, we developed a model that can reliably stratify patients with DLBCL treated with R-CHOP into four survival subgroups. This model can be used to identify patients who may not respond well to R-CHOP to be considered for alternative therapy and clinical trials. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Hsi: AbbVie Inc, Eli Lilly: Research Funding. Ferreri: Ospedale San Raffaele srl: Patents & Royalties; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Beigene: Research Funding; Hutchison Medipharma: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; PletixaPharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; x Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adienne: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Piris: Millenium/Takeda, EUSA, Jansen, NanoString, Kyowa Kirin, Gilead and Celgene.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Winter: BMS: Other: Husband: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Actinium Pharma: Consultancy; Janssen: Other: Husband: Consultancy; Agios: Other: Husband: Consultancy; Gilead: Other: Husband: Consultancy; Epizyme: Other: Husband: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Ariad/Takeda: Other: Husband: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Husband: Consultancy, Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Karyopharm (Curio Science): Honoraria.

Abstract Background: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca) and Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen Johnson & Johnson) vaccines against COVID-19 have been associated with thrombotic thrombocytopenic reactions referred to as vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) characterized by the presence of platelet-activating, anti-PF4 antibodies. While VITT shares key clinical features with a similar but separate entity, Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), there appear to be important differences: 1) VITT patients have extremely high thrombosis rates and are very strongly positive in PF4-polyanion ELISAs, and 2) Many patients with VITT frequently present with refractoriness to therapy or have disease recurrence that suggests distinct antibody characteristics due to a strong autoimmune anti-PF4 response. Aims: The goal of this study was to characterize anti-PF4 antibodies in VITT. Methods: Five VITT patients were studied, one after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination and four after Ad26.COV2. Reactivity of VITT anti-PF4 antibodies to uncomplexed PF4, PF4-Polyvinyl sulfonate (PVS), and PF4-heparin targets was evaluated, and the platelet-activating ability of these antibodies was examined in the PF4-dependent P-selectin Expression assay (PEA). Anti-PF4 antibodies were isolated from patient blood samples using PF4-treated heparin sepharose beads, and isolated antibodies were subject to mass spectrometric evaluation (Liquid Chromatography Electrospray Ionization Quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry [LC-ESI-QTOF MS]). Results: Antibodies from all VITT patients recognized both uncomplexed and complexed PF4 (Fig. 1A). Interestingly, recognition of PF4 by VITT antibodies was lower if PF4 targets were complexed with polyanions, PVS, or heparin (Fig. 1A). These results contrasted with those obtained in a "classical" HIT patient which showed reactivity to PF4/polyanion complexes, but not to uncomplexed PF4 (Fig 1A). All samples activated platelets in the PEA (data not shown). Mass spectrometric evaluation of anti-PF4 antibodies isolated from VITT patients demonstrated monoclonal anti-PF4 antibodies in three patients, and bi- and tri-clonal antibodies in one patient each (a representative monoclonal antibody anti-PF4 antibody is shown in Fig 1B). Consistent with current dogma, polyclonal anti-PF4/polyanion antibodies were seen in "classical" HIT (Fig 1C). Evaluation of anti-PF4 antibodies in spontaneous HIT, a type of autoimmune HIT seen in pro-inflammatory milieus such as orthopedic surgery and infectious prodromes also demonstrated monoclonal anti-PF4 antibodies (Fig 1D). Eluates from control heparin-sepharose beads did not reveal any immunoglobulins (data not shown). Conclusion: Although development of platelet-activating anti-PF4 antibodies and the thrombotic thrombocytopenia syndrome seen after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and Ad26.COV2.S vaccination resembles HIT, these findings demonstrate that clonally restricted anti-PF4 antibodies mediate VITT while polyclonal anti-PF4 antibodies mediate HIT. In addition, we noted clonally-restricted anti-PF4 antibodies in another condition that does not require proximate heparin exposure, spontaneous ("autoimmune") HIT. In VITT, the strong immune response after vaccine administration may result in the activation of a single or few pre-existing anti-PF4 reactive clones, and development of clonally restricted anti-PF4 antibodies with a similar pathophysiology to Spontaneous HIT. It is also likely that high levels of monoclonal/oligoclonal anti-PF4 antibodies cause the severe thrombotic phenotypes seen in VITT and Spontaneous HIT. The high mortality rate and reports of disease refractoriness to therapy in VITT may warrant consideration of additional therapeutic modalities like rituximab and therapeutic plasma exchange in select cases. Figure Legends: (A): VITT (Patient 1-ChAdOx1 nCoV-19; Patients 2-5, Ad26.COV2.S) patient samples were tested in ELISA against uncomplexed PF4 (white), and PF4 in complex with polyvinyl sulfonate (light grey), or unfractionated heparin (dark gray). (B-D) Mass spectrometric evaluation of anti-PF4 antibodies isolated from VITT (B), HIT (C) and spontaneous HIT patient sera (D). "Relative Intensity" refers to abundance of the Ig light chain relative to the polyclonal background. Numbers above Ig light chain peaks depict mass/charge ratios. NC- Normal control. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Murray: Mayo Clinic: Other: Has received patents for the Mass-Fix technology which has been licensed to the Binding Site with potential royalties.. Padmanabhan: Veralox Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background Histiocytic disorders are rare hematologic neoplasms characterized by their high clinical heterogeneity. Evidence of constitutive activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway in a number of these disorders has led to the increasing use of BRAF- and MEK-inhibitors as a therapeutic strategy. Response to these therapies is not universal and additional effective treatment options are required. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have proven effective for a wide array of malignancies. Tumor mutational burden (TMB), the total number of somatic pathogenic variants per coding region in a tumor genome, is a clinical biomarker associated with response to immunotherapy. We have previously reported preliminary findings of low TMB in a small cohort of patients with histiocytic neoplasms (Goyal G et al. Blood 2019). In this study, our aim was to confirm the findings in a larger clinical cohort using next generation sequencing studies. Methods A retrospective review of adult patients consecutively seen at Mayo Clinic from 2017 to April 2021 and diagnosis of a histiocytic neoplasm was performed. Electronic records were queried for demographic and laboratory data of all patients who consented to undergo tumor-tissue next-generation sequencing with the Tempus-xT ® or xO ® assay (Chicago, IL), throughout the course of their evaluation. TMB was reported as the number of nonsynonymous mutations per coding area of a tumor genome. TMB across groups was compared via an independent-samples T-test or via analysis of variance and post hoc subgroup testing via Turkey's Test as required. Results Seventy-three patients were included in the study. Individual diagnoses included: Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD) in 31.5% (n=23), including 3 patients with overlap features of ECD and other histiocytoses; Rosai Dorfman disease (RDD) in 28.8% (n=21); Langerhans cell histiocytosis in 21.9% (n=16), histiocytic sarcoma (HS) in 5.5% (n=4), and other histiocytic neoplasms in 12.3% (n=10) including adult xanthogranuloma, xanthoma disseminatum, undifferentiated histiocytoses, and one case of Langerhans cell sarcoma. Median tumor percentage on analyzed samples was 30% (range 10%-90%) and was ≤20% in 29 samples. TMB was <1.0 mutations per megabase (mpMb) in 42.5% (n=31) and >5.0 mpMb in only 6 cases. Median TMB was 1.58 (range 0 - 5.26) for ECD, 1.08 (range 0 - 6.3) for LCH, 0.2 (range 0 - 5.8) for RDD, 3.19 (range 1.67 - 6.8) for HS, and 1.6 (range 0 - 7.5) for other histiocytic neoplasms (Figure 1). No clear association between increasing TMB and number of systems with histiocytic infiltration was observed (Figure 2). A significant increase in TMB was observed among the 5 cases of sarcoma as compared to the rest of the cohort (p=0.014). When not considering sarcomas, no differences were observed in TMB between patients with ECD, LCH, RDD or other histiocytoses (F=0.775; p=0.512). Conclusion In this large cohort of histiocytic disorders, TMB was low compared to that historically seen in other neoplasms though this is likely influenced by tumor purity ≤20% in 29 cases. Only 6 tumors had TMB reports with mpMb above the threshold thought to be associated with an increased likelihood of response to PD-1/PDL1-targeted therapies (>5 mpMb). Our results suggest a low likelihood of response among histiocytic disorders using immune checkpoint inhibitors. Further exploration among malignant histiocytoses (HS and Langerhans cell sarcoma) is warranted given our findings of higher TMB compared with other histiocytic neoplasms. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Bennani: Kymera: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board.

Abstract Abstract text: Background/Introduction: Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia (CMML) is an uncommon MDS/MPN overlap syndrome that has historically been included under the umbrella of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) for clinical trial and treatment. As a result, DNA methyltransferase inhibitors (DNMTi) such as decitabine or azacitidine have been the established standard of care for the treatment of CMML. The oral bioavailability of these agents has been limited due to rapid degradation by cytidine deaminase (CDA) in the gut and liver so treatment has required intravenous infusion or subcutaneous injections daily for 5-7 days every month (m) adding significant burden to older cancer patients due to daily time commitment and travel to treatment centers. In the context of pandemic SARS-CoV-2, parenteral therapy also increases contact with medical settings with increased infection risk. Oral decitabine 35 mg/cedazuridine 100 mg (ASTX727) is an oral fixed dose combination of decitabine and the CDA inhibitor cedazuridine that produced equivalent exposure (99%; 90% CI 93% to 106%) to IV decitabine 20 mg/m 2 in a randomized cross-over study (Garcia-Manero et al, ASH 2019), and Median overall survival (mOS) for the entire study population in the ASCERTAIN study was approximately 32 months (Savona, 2021). Here, we present outcome data for this study for the enrolled subpopulation of patients with CMML. Methods: We used a randomized cross over design in which patients were randomized in the first 2 cycles 1:1 to either Sequence A: (decitabine 35 mg/ cedazuridine 100 mg in Cycle 1 followed by IV decitabine at 20 mg/m 2 in Cycle 2), or Sequence B: (IV decitabine in Cycle 1 followed by oral decitabine/cedazuridine in Cycle 2). We conducted an intra-patient comparison of decitabine PK (primary PK endpoint: decitabine AUC equivalence over 5 days of dosing). Cycles were repeated every 28 days (unless delays were needed). All patients received oral decitabine/cedazuridine in Cycles 3 and above until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients were eligible per the FDA-approved label of IV decitabine (MDS patients by FAB classification including CMML, or MDS IPSS Intermediate-1, 2 or high-risk patients). Clinical endpoints were best response according to International Working Group (IWG) 2006 response criteria, transfusion independence for at least 8 or 16 consecutive weeks, overall survival, and safety. Adverse events (AEs) were graded by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v 4.03. Results: Of the 133 patients enrolled and treated in ASCERTAIN, 16 (12%) had a diagnosis of CMML with demographics and as follows: median age 71.5 years, 69% Male/31% Female, median weight 87kg (range 65-124), 25% ECOG 0, 75% ECOG 1. Population disease characteristics were: 19% poor or intermediate risk cytogenetics, with median baseline hemoglobin 90 g/L, neutrophils 1.27 X 10 9/L, platelets 84 x 10 9/L, bone marrow blasts 5%, with 38% RBC transfusion dependent. Patients received a median of 7 cycles of therapy (range 3-24). Treatment-emergent adverse events of CTCAE Grade 3 or higher in > 10% of patients, independent of relationship to ASTX727, were cytopenias (neutropenia [69%], thrombocytopenia [63%], anemia [56%], leukopenia [19%]), febrile neutropenia (31%), fatigue (13%). Two patients (12.5%) had Complete Responses (CR), 8 (50%) had marrow CR ([mCR], including 3 (19%) with hematologic improvement (HI); Overall Response rate (ORR) [CR + PR+ mCR + HI] was 75%. Of six patients with baseline RBC transfusion dependence 3 (50%) became transfusion independent. Leukemia-free survival was 28.2 months and after a median follow up of more than 33 months, median overall survival had not been reached. Two patients (13%) went on to Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant (HCT). Conclusions: In the overall study, oral decitabine/cedazuridine delivered equivalent PK exposure to 5 days of IV decitabine 20mg/m 2 with a resultant clinical activity safety and efficacy profile in CMML patients consistent with the published literature (e.g Zeidan, et al 2017) and the Phase 2 experience. The use of oral decitabine/cedazuridine is a reasonable approach in CMML patients. References: Garcia-Manero, et al ASH 2019 Savona, et al, Int. MDS Symposium, 2021 Zeidan, et al, Cancer 2017: 3754-3762. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Savona: Geron: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS-Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NOVARTIS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Taiho: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; ALX Oncology: Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. McCloskey: Pfizer: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy; COTA: Other: Equity Ownership; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Griffiths: Boston Biomedical: Consultancy; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Taiho Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Apellis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Yee: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding; Geron: Research Funding; Shattuck Labs: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; F. Hoffmann La Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Otsuka: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MedImmune: Research Funding; Jazz: Research Funding; Astex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TaiHo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Paladin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Zeidan: BeyondSpring: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; BioCryst: Other: Clinical Trial Committees; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Pfizer: Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Kura: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ionis: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees, Travel support, Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees; Genentech: Consultancy; Geron: Other: Clinical Trial Committees; Cardiff Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees; Aprea: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy; Astex: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Jasper: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acceleron: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees, Research Funding. Al-Kali: Novartis: Research Funding; Astex: Other: Research support to institution. Patel: Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene-BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PVI: Honoraria. Sabloff: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TaiHo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jaxx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ROCHE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dao: Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment. Fazal: Janssen Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Taiho Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Glaxo Smith Kline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AMGEN: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Stemline Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Odenike: Celgene, Incyte, AstraZeneca, Astex, NS Pharma, AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Oncotherapy, Agios, CTI/Baxalta, Aprea: Research Funding; AbbVie, Celgene, Impact Biomedicines, Novartis, Taiho Oncology, Takeda: Consultancy. Kantarjian: Ipsen Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria; Astellas Health: Honoraria; Aptitude Health: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Research Funding; Immunogen: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; KAHR Medical Ltd: Honoraria; NOVA Research: Honoraria; Precision Biosciences: Honoraria; Taiho Pharmaceutical Canada: Honoraria. DeZern: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Taiho: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Roboz: Janssen: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Actinium: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Glaxo SmithKline: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Jasper Therapeutics: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; MEI Pharma - IDMC Chair: Consultancy; Mesoblast: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy. Busque: Novartis: Consultancy. Leber: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AMGEN: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TaiHo: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Otsuka: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Hao: Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment. Keer: Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment. Azab: Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.