Citations

Background: The overall participation of cancer patients in interventional clinical trials in the United States remains very low, with ~5% of patients being enrolled in clinical trials nationwide. The outcomes of patients with MM have improved significantly over the past decade, but available data suggest that the participation rates for patients with MM is comparable to other cancers. The drivers of participation and the potential impact of clinical trial participation have not been systematically studied in MM. Patients and Methods: We identified 228 patients who were enrolled into clinical trials for initial therapy of newly diagnosed MM between 2004 and 2018, and 4 controls for each of these patients. Controls were patients with NDMM, who were diagnosed closest in time to the index patients and did not participate in an interventional treatment trial. Various baseline characteristics as well as overall survival were compared between the two groups. Results: The baseline characteristics of the two groups are as shown in the Table. Patients who entered clinical trials were more likely to be female, resided closer to the clinic, and were more likely to have a prior history of MGUS. They were more likely to have higher ISS Stage, and a higher serum LDH, but there was no difference in the FISH risk status. Other indices of disease burden such as lower hemoglobin and platelets, higher serum creatinine were all seen more often in the control group, but may have been influenced by the trial entry criteria. Looking at the outcomes, the overall survival was longer among those enrolled into clinical trials compared to those who did not [median 103 (95% CI; 86, 136) vs. 63 (95% CI; 53, 69) months, p<0.001 (Figure). Conclusions: The current study provides important clues regarding demographic determinants of trial participation and disease biology related features that reflect likelihood of trial participation. Overall survival was significantly longer among the trial participants, which likely represent a mix of reasons including baseline status of patients, intensity of monitoring and efficacy of novel treatment approaches. Table Disclosures Kapoor: Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Cellectar: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Glaxo Smith Kline: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Alnylam: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Akcea: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy. Gertz:Ionis: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria; Prothena: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Spectrum: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:Karyopharm: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy. Leung:Omeros: Research Funding; Aduro: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Russell:Imanis: Equity Ownership. Kumar:Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Key Points The ClinGen MM-VCEP has specified RUNX1-specific curation rules to address gene function, gene-specific domains, and phenotypic criteria. RUNX1-specific criteria resulted in a reduction in CONF and VUS variants by 33%, emphasizing the need for expert variant curation.

4563 Background: We previously reported no difference in favorable response rate (FRR) or PFS for TIP vs BEP. Here we present results of a pre-planned analysis of biomarkers of outcome. Methods: HCG and AFP were drawn on days 1 and 15 of each cycle and rates of decline classified as satisfactory [S] or unsatisfactory [US] by MSK (Motzer JCO 2007) and GETUG (Fizazi Lancet Oncol 2014) methods. IHC for ERCC1, RAD51, PARP1, HER-2, and p-AKT was performed on pre-treatment tumor samples. An H-score (0 – 300) was calculated for each stain (H = stain intensity [0 – 3] x % positive cells [0-100]). H-score and marker decline category were correlated with FRR (PR + CR) and PFS. Patients (pts) who received disease-stabilizing chemotherapy were excluded from marker analyses. Results: Of 91 pts, 80 did not receive disease-stabilizing treatment with 79 having sufficient marker values for analysis by the MSK method and 75 by GETUG. By MSK, 49 had S decline vs 30 US; by GETUG, 34 S vs 41 US. FRR and PFS were improved for pts with S vs US decline by both methods and remained significant by the MSK method when stratified by IGCCCG group (Table). IHC (n=77) quality was adequate in 71 to 73 pts (varied by stain) and was positive (H >0) for PARP in 68/73, ERCC1 in 54/71, RAD51 in 54/73, p-AKT in 5/72, and HER2 in 4/72. Only PARP1 was associated with outcome with worse PFS for the lowest expression tertile (H < 180; p=0.013). Conclusions: PARP1 expression and tumor marker decline rates, particularly by MSK method, were significantly associated with outcome to initial chemotherapy in int/poor risk GCT. Future trials incorporating marker decline into treatment allocation and validating the prognostic effect of PARP1 expression are warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT01873326. [Table: see text]

Cholangiocytes normally express primary cilia, a multisensory organelle that detects signals from the cellular environment. Cilia are significantly reduced in cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) by a mechanism involving overexpression of histone deacetylase 6 (HDAC6). Despite HDAC6 overexpression in CCA, we found no differences in its mRNA level, suggesting a posttranscriptional regulation, possibly involving microRNAs (miRNAs). Here, we describe that at least two HDAC6‐targeting miRNAs, miR‐433 and miR‐22, are down‐regulated in CCA both in vitro and in vivo. Experimental restoration of these miRNAs in CCA cells reduced HDAC6 expression, induced ciliary restoration, and decreased the malignant phenotype. Furthermore, in contrast to the mature forms, levels of precursor forms of these miRNAs were higher in CCA compared to normal cholangiocytes and accumulated in the nuclei, suggesting a defective nuclear export. We assessed the expression of Exportin‐5, the protein responsible for transporting miRNA precursors out of the nucleus, and found it to be reduced by 50% in CCA compared to normal cholangiocytes. Experimental overexpression of Exportin‐5 in CCA cells restored precursor and mature forms of these miRNAs to normal levels, inducing a decrease in the expression of HDAC6 and a decrease in the malignant phenotype. Conversely, short hairpin RNA (shRNA) depletion of Exportin‐5 in normal cholangiocytes resulted in increased nuclear retention of precursor miRNAs, decreased mature miRNAs, increased cell proliferation, and shorter cilia. Conclusion: These data suggest that down‐regulated Exportin‐5 impairs the nuclear export of miR‐433 and miR‐22 precursor forms, causing a decrease in levels of mature miR‐433 and miR‐22 forms, and leading to overexpression of HDAC6 and ciliary loss in CCA. (Hepatology 2018).

Extracellular vesicles (EVs), such as exosomes and microvesicles, are released by different cell types and participate in physiological and pathophysiological processes. EVs mediate intercellular communication as cell‐derived extracellular signalling organelles that transmit specific information from their cell of origin to their target cells. As a result of these properties, EVs of defined cell types may serve as novel tools for various therapeutic approaches, including (a) anti‐tumour therapy, (b) pathogen vaccination, (c) immune‐modulatory and regenerative therapies and (d) drug delivery. The translation of EVs into clinical therapies requires the categorization of EV‐based therapeutics in compliance with existing regulatory frameworks. As the classification defines subsequent requirements for manufacturing, quality control and clinical investigation, it is of major importance to define whether EVs are considered the active drug components or primarily serve as drug delivery vehicles. For an effective and particularly safe translation of EV‐based therapies into clinical practice, a high level of cooperation between researchers, clinicians and competent authorities is essential. In this position statement, basic and clinical scientists, as members of the International Society for Extracellular Vesicles (ISEV) and of the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) program of the European Union, namely European Network on Microvesicles and Exosomes in Health and Disease (ME‐HaD), summarize recent developments and the current knowledge of EV‐based therapies. Aspects of safety and regulatory requirements that must be considered for pharmaceutical manufacturing and clinical application are highlighted. Production and quality control processes are discussed. Strategies to promote the therapeutic application of EVs in future clinical studies are addressed.

Abstract Background: With over 13 million cancer survivors in the United States today, second cancers are of rapidly growing importance. However, data on nontreatment risk factors for second cancers are sparse. We explored the feasibility of pooling data from cohort studies of cancer incidence to investigate second cancer etiology. Methods: We combined data from five prospective studies including more than 800,000 individuals. We compared study designs and populations; evaluated availability of and ability to harmonize risk factor data; compared incidence and survival for common first primary malignancies and incidence of second primary malignancies; and estimated sample size requirements. Results: Overall, 96,513 incident, first primary malignancies were diagnosed during 1985 to 2009. Incidence rates and survival following the first primary varied among the cohorts, but most of the heterogeneity could be explained by characteristics of the study populations (age, sex, smoking, and screening rates). A total of 7,890 second primary cancers (excluding original primary site) were identified, yielding sufficient statistical power (≥80%) for detecting modest associations with risk of all second cancers among survivors of common first primary malignancies (e.g., colorectal cancer); however, there were insufficient events for studying survivors of rarer cancers or identifying risk factors for specific second cancers. Conclusions: Pooling data from cohort studies to investigate nontreatment risk factors for second primary cancers seems feasible but there are important methodologic issues—some of which are barriers to specific research questions—that require special attention. Impact: Increased understanding of nontreatment risk factors for second cancers will provide valuable prevention and surveillance information. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 23(8); 1598–608. ©2014 AACR.