Citations

AbstractRapid and functional bone‐tendon (B‐T) healing remains a difficulty in clinical practice. Tissue engineering has emerged as a promising strategy to address this problem. However, the majority of tissue engineering scaffolds are loaded with stem cells to enhance the regenerability in B‐T healing, which is complicated and inconvenient for clinical application. Accordingly, developing a cell‐free scaffold with chemotactic function and chondrogenic inducibility may be an effective approach. In this study, a collagen affinity peptide derived from the A3 domain of von Willebrand factor (a hemostasis factor) was fused into the C‐terminal of a stromal cell‐derived factor‐1α (SDF‐1α) to synthesize a recombinant SDF‐1α capable of binding collagen and chemotactic activity. The recombinant SDF‐1α was then tethered on the collagen fibers of a book‐shaped acellular fibrocartilage scaffold (BAFS), thus fabricating a novel scaffold (C‐SDF‐1α/BAFS) with chemotactic function and chondrogenic inducibility. In vitro tests determined that this scaffold was noncytotoxic and biomimetic, could attract stem cells migrating to the scaffold using sustainably released C‐SDF‐1α, and inducedthe interacting stem cells down the chondrogenic lineage. In vivo, the C‐SDF‐1α/BAFS significantly enhanced the B‐T healing in a rabbit partial patellectomy model, as shown by the larger cartilaginous metaplasia region, better fibrocartilage regeneration, additional bone formation, and improved biomechanical properties. Therefore, the findings of the study demonstrate that the C‐SDF‐1α/BAFS could potentially be applied for B‐T healing.

A major direction for future microbiome research is implementation of fecal sample collections in large-scale, prospective epidemiologic studies. Studying microbiome-disease associations likely requires microbial data to be pooled from multiple studies. Our findings suggest collection methods that are most optimal to be used standardly across future WGSS microbiome studies.

AbstractBackgroundPrevious studies indicate there may be psychological consequences of being unable to serve as a living donor, but these have not been explored in a large national cohort of low‐income individuals who initiated living donor evaluation in US transplant centers.MethodsUsing data from 6574 National Living Donor Assistance Center (NLDAC) participants (November 1, 2007‐December 31, 2018), we utilized a cross‐sectional study design to evaluate short‐term depressive symptoms and satisfaction with life in living donors and non‐donors (those who were declined or withdrew from evaluation) using the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) and the PHQ‐8, with and without risk adjustment using linear regression.ResultsNational Living Donor Assistance Center participants originated from 207 US transplant centers. 52% of NLDAC participants responded to the survey (n = 3423; donors = 2848 (58.6% of all donors), non‐donors = 575 (33.5% of all non‐donors); ncenters = 201)). Respondents were significantly older, more likely to be female, white, non‐Hispanic, married, more educated, more full‐time employed, and more likely to be unrelated to the recipient vs non‐respondents (all, P < .001). Among survey respondents, donors were significantly younger, more likely to be non‐Hispanic, employed, and related to the recipient compared to non‐donors (all, P < .05). Higher PHQ‐8 scores were correlated with lower SWL scores (r = −.32, P < .001). Both groups displayed high SWLS (donors vs non‐donors: 27.1 vs 26.3, P = .002). Both groups had low levels of depressive symptoms overall, but donors had more symptoms than non‐donors (3.5 vs 2.4, P < .001). After risk adjustment, non‐donors had significantly less depressive symptoms by PHQ‐8 (28% lower, P < .001), but had lower life satisfaction (1.2 points lower, P < .001).ConclusionsDonors and non‐donors have high global levels of overall life satisfaction and low levels of depressive symptoms at 8 weeks after donation or denial. While small effect sizes were observed between groups in these outcomes, being a non‐donor was an independent risk factor for lower life satisfaction, which warrants further evaluation.

Background: Mechanical injury in the conduction system requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) associated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedure is a common complication. The objective of this study was to use ambulatory monitor BodyGuardian to assess late occurrence of atrioventricular block (AVB) after TAVR. Methods: This prospective study evaluated 365 patients who underwent TAVR at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota between June 2016 and August 2017. Patients who received PPM for bradycardia after TAVR before discharge were considered as the PPM group. Those not requiring PPM received a BodyGuardian system (BodyGuardian group) for 30 days of continuous monitoring. Primary end point was Mobitz II or third-degree atrioventricular block (II/III AVB) at 30-day follow-up. Results: Of 365 patients, 74 who had a PPM or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator before TAVR and 94 who were enrolled in other studies were excluded. Of 197 patients enrolled in the study, 70 (35.5%) received PPM and 127 had BodyGuardian before the hospital dismissal. Eleven of 127 (8.6%) BodyGuardian group required PPM within 30 days after TAVR for late occurrence of symptomatic bradycardia. In total, 33 of 197 (16.7%) patients developed II/III AVB (24 before and 9 after discharge). Thirty-four patients had preexisting right bundle branch block. Of them, 16 (47%) developed II/III AVB. Of 53 patients who developed new left bundle branch block after TAVR, 14% progressed to II/III AVB within 30 days. Conclusions: In patients without a standard post-TAVR pacing indication, yet a potential risk to develop AVB, a strategy of 30-day monitoring identifies additional patients who require permanent pacing.

Abstract Introduction: Several prognostic models for overall survival (OS) in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have been developed, but none were derived for patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) CLL treated in the era of novel agents. We used a comprehensive approach to derive and validate a novel risk model for OS in 2,475 pts with R/R CLL who received therapy in randomized phase 3 trials evaluating ibrutinib (IBR), idelalisib (IDELA), and venetoclax (VEN) vs control arms, or the Mayo Clinic CLL Database (MCCD). Methods: In collaboration with Janssen, Gilead, Pharmacyclics, and Genentech/Roche, the analysis included 2,475 pts from 6 multicenter randomized phase 3 trials or the MCCD. Trials included were: IBR plus bendamustine-rituximab (BR) vs placebo plus BR (HELIOS: NCT01611090), IBR vs ofatumumab (RESONATE: NCT01578707), IDELA plus BR vs placebo plus BR (Study 115: NCT01569295); IDELA plus rituximab vs placebo plus rituximab (Study 116: NCT01539512); IDELA plus ofatumumab vs ofatumumab (Study 119: NCT01659021); VEN plus rituximab vs BR (MURANO: NCT02005471). All pts had R/R CLL and required treatment by iwCLL criteria. The model-building dataset (n=969) included pts from HELIOS and RESONATE, and was randomly assigned to the IBR/chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) training dataset (n=727) and IBR/CIT internal-validation dataset(n=242). Three independent external validation datasets included IDELA/CIT (n=897), VEN/CIT (n=389), and MCCD (n=220). We applied univariate and multivariate analyses (MVA) to 28 candidate clinical/laboratory and genetic prognostic factors to derive the risk model in the training dataset. The primary endpoint was OS. We assessed the need for separate models for targeted agents by interactions with treatment in univariate analyses. We proceeded to develop a single model for all pts with R/R CLL, as only one candidate factor (del(13q), interaction p value <0.1) demonstrated a marginal differential effect. We evaluated cutoffs for dichotomized covariates and for definition of risk groups after the final factors were selected. We fit a Cox regression on the training and internal/external validation datasets using the risk categories as the covariate to test the difference among the groups, and calculated the C-statistic as a measure of discrimination. Results: Of 11 selected factors with a significant univariate effect on OS (p<0.1), 6 were independently prognostic in the MVA of OS (p<0.05): Baseline β2-microglobubulin (B2M), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), hemoglobin (HGB), IGHV mutational status, number of prior therapies, and time from initiation of last therapy. We excluded number of prior therapies from the model, reasoning that its optimal cutoff might change with advances in CLL therapies. IGHV did not remain significant (p=0.0592) in MVA of 5 remaining prognostic factors. Notably, del(17p) was not independently prognostic for OS. The final risk model consisted of 4 prognostic factors: B2M ≥5 mg/L, LDH elevated, HGB <110 mg/L for women or <120 mg/L for men, and time from initiation of last therapy <24 months. Because hazard ratios for each factor were similar (range, 0.55-0.68) with overlapping confidence intervals, 1 point was assigned to each factor. The resulting score separated pts into low (score 0-1), intermediate (score 2-3), and high risk (score 4) groups. Our risk model was prognostic for OS in the IBR/CIT training dataset (C-statistic 0.74 [95% CI 0.60-0.85]; log-rank p<0.0001) and was validated in the IBR/CIT internal validation (C-statistic 0.79 [95% CI 0.56-0.97]; log-rank p<0.0001), as well as in all 3 external validations: IDELA/CIT dataset (CS=0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.81; log-rank p<0.001); VEN/CIT dataset (CS=0.76, 95% CI 0.66-0.85; log-rank p=0.01); MCCD (CS=0.61, 95% CI 0.56-0.66; log-rank p<0.001). Conclusions: We present the first validated risk model for OS in R/R CLL in the era of targeted therapies. Our model consists of 4 readily available factors (B2M ≥5 mg/L, LDH elevated, HGB <110 mg/L for women or <120 mg/L for men, and time from initiation of last therapy <24 months), identifies 3 prognostic groups with significantly different OS, and has been validated for pts treated with all FDA approved targeted therapies: IBR, IDELA, and VEN. This identifies a well-defined cohort of pts with R/R disease with an unmet clinical need who are suitable for prospective trials targeting these pts. An exploratory analysis regarding prediction of MRD is ongoing. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Darif: Jannsen: Employment. Londhe:Jannsen: Employment. Xing:Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Employment. Mun:Genentech: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kay:Cytomx Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: 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; Infinity Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shanafelt:Mayo Clinic: Patents & Royalties: Physician Well-being Index, Medical Student Well-being Index, Well-being index; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Furman:Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Hillmen:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sharman:Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Seymour:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jones:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ferrante:Jannsen: Employment. Dreiling:Gilead: Employment. Mobasher:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Other: Ownership interests non-PLC; Genentech Inc: Employment. Stark:Genentech: Employment. Reddy:Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership; Pharmacyclics: Employment. Howes:Janssen: Employment. James:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Bhargava:Gilead: Employment. Zelenetz:Novartis/Sandoz: Consultancy; Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Background Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) are aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas with poor overall survival rates. The genetics of PTCLs are poorly understood. We have described t(6;14)(p25.3;q11.2) translocations in PTCLs involving the T-cell receptor-alpha (TRA@) and interferon regulatory factor-4 (IRF4) genes and overexpressing IRF4 protein (also called MUM1). IRF4/MUM1 is a lymphoid transcription factor involved in differentiation and growth, the expression of which is tightly regulated in normal T cells. However, nearly half of PTCLs constitutively express IRF4/MUM1 and this expression is associated with adverse overall survival in several PTCL subtypes. Because IRF4/TRA@ translocations are rare among PTCLs (<1%), we investigated the presence of other genetic abnormalities of IRF4 in PTCLs and examined their association with IRF4/MUM1 protein expression. Methods Studies were performed on paraffin tissue sections of PTCL specimens diagnosed by standard WHO criteria. IRF4/MUM1 immunohistochemical staining (IHC) was performed using the MUM1p antibody and considered positive if nuclear staining was present in >30% of tumor cell nuclei. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) was performed using breakapart probes constructed from bacterial artificial chromosome DNA that hybridized to loci flanking the IRF4 locus on 6p25.3. Cases with 3 or more fusion signals were considered to have extra copies of the IRF4 gene. In a subset of cases, PCR and Sanger sequencing was performed on DNA extracted from frozen PTCL tumor tissue with primer sets that amplified exons 1 to 10 of the IRF4 gene. Data were analyzed using the chi-square test or t test. Results PTCLs from 277 patients (175 M:102 F; median age, 61 y) were examined by both IHC and FISH. The subtype distribution was: PTCL, not otherwise specified (NOS), 93; anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL), 89; angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), 27; cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), 43; and cytotoxic PTCL, 25. IRF4/MUM1 was positive in 116 cases (42%). Extra copies of IRF4 were identified in 18 PTCLs (7%), 83% of which were IRF4/MUM1 protein-positive. In contrast, 39% of cases without extra copies of IRF4 were IRF4/MUM1 protein-positive (p=0.0002). The mean percentage of tumor cells with IRF4/MUM1 staining was 69% in cases with extra copies of IRF4, compared to 30% in cases without extra copies (p=0.0001). Extra copies of IRF4 were seen in 13% of ALCLs, 4% each of PTCLs, NOS and cytotoxic PTCLs, 2% of CTCLs, and 0% of AITLs (p=0.02). Two IRF4/MUM1-positive cases had an IRF4/TRA@ translocation (1%). We selected 30 IRF4/MUM1-positive PTCLs for Sanger sequencing. In this subset, we identified a previously undescribed non-synonymous variant in exon 5 (S309R) in 1 case (3%) without an extra copy of IRF4. Conclusions Extra copies of IRF4 are seen in ∼7% of PTCLs, are significantly associated with IRF4/MUM1 expression, and are preferentially observed in ALCLs. Both IRF4/TRA@ translocations and IRF4 mutations are rare in PTCLs. These data suggest that genetic abnormalities of the IRF4 gene – specifically extra copies of IRF4 – may contribute to IRF4/MUM1 expression in some PTCLs. Since IRF4/MUM1 expression is seen in ∼42% of PTCLs, these data also imply the existence of other regulatory mechanisms. Characterizing these mechanisms may be important clinically, since IRF4/MUM1 has been proposed as a therapeutic target in human cancers but drugs that directly inhibit its function are currently not available. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Introduction: Over 500,000 bone grafting procedures are performed every year in the United States for neoplastic and traumatic lesions of the craniofacial skeleton, costing $585 million in medical care. Current bone grafting procedures are limited, and full-thickness critical-sized defects (CSDs) of the adult human skull thus pose a substantial reconstructive challenge for the craniofacial surgeon. Cell-based strategies have been shown to safely and efficaciously accelerate the rate of bone formation in CSDs in animals. The authors recently demonstrated that supraphysiological transplantation of macrophages seeded in pullalan–collagen composite hydrogels significantly accelerated wound healing in wild type and diabetic mice, an effect mediated in part by enhancing angiogenesis. In this study, the authors investigated the bone healing effects of macrophage transplantation into CSDs of mice. Methods: CD1 athymic nude mice (60 days of age) were anesthetized, and unilateral full-thickness critical-sized (4 mm in diameter) cranial defects were created in the right parietal bone, avoiding cranial sutures. Macrophages were isolated from FVB-L2G mice and seeded onto hydroxyapatite-poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) (HA-PLGA) scaffolds (1.0 × 106 cells per CSD). Scaffolds were incubated for 24 hours before they were placed into the CSDs. Macrophage survival was assessed using three-dimensional in vivo imaging system (3D IVIS)/micro-CT. Micro-CT at 0, 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks was performed to evaluate gross bone formation, which was quantified using Adobe Photoshop. Microscopic evidence of bone regeneration was assessed at 8 weeks by histology. Bone formation and macrophage survival were compared at each time point using independent samples t tests. Results: Transplantation of macrophages at supraphysiological concentration had no effect on the formation of bones in CSDs as assessed by either micro-CT data at any time point analyzed (all P > 0.05). These results were corroborated by histology. 3D IVIS/micro-CT demonstrated survival of macrophages through 8 weeks. Conclusion: Supraphysiologic delivery of macrophages to CSDs of mice had no effect on bone formation despite survival of transplanted macrophages through to 8 weeks posttransplantation. Further research into the physiological effects of macrophages on bone regeneration is needed to assess whether recapitulation of these conditions in macrophage-based therapy can promote the healing of large cranial defects.

Abstract Background: CXCR4 is a chemokine receptor over-expressed on > 75% of cancers, including myeloid leukemia blasts. Ulocuplumab (BMS- 936564) is a first in class, fully human IgG4 monoclonal antibody which inhibits the binding of CXCR4 to CXCL12, resulting in the mobilization of leukocytes from the bone marrow to the peripheral blood. Ulocuplumab also induces apoptosis of CXCR4+ cells in clinicial samples (i.e., leukemia blasts) and in in vitro experiments (e.g. in Tregs). It is thus hypothesized that Ulocuplumab may induce the mobilization and apoptosis of myeloid blasts & immunosuppressive cells which could improve the overall response rate to chemotherapy Objective: To conduct a first-in-man phase I dose escalation/ expansion trial to determine the safety, pharmacology, and clinical benefit of Ulocuplumab in relapsed/refractory AML Results: Seventy three subjects (median age, 58 yrs; range, 21-79 y) with relapsed/refractory AML were treated with Ulocuplumab and MEC [mitoxantrone, 8 mg/m2; etoposide , 100 mg/m2; and cytarabine, 1 g/ m2; i.v. d 1-5]. Thirty subjects in escalation received a single infusion of Ulocuplumab (doses of 0.3, 1, 3, or 10 mg/kg) one week prior to starting MEC and 3 additional weekly doses per MEC cycle thereafter (starting on Day 1). Ulocuplumab was escalated to a maximum of 10 mg/kg without any dose-limiting toxicity during monotherapy or in combination with MEC in the 1st cycle. In expansion phase, 43 patients were similarly treated with10 mg/kg Ulocuplumab and MEC. The overall complete remission and complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery rate (CR/CRi) was 51%. Subjects with first CR > 6 months had better ORR (16/23, 70%) than those with CR1 ≤6 months or primary induction failure (6/20, 30%). Of note, four subjects had CR/CRi after a single dose of Ulocuplumab monotherapy. Transient, mild/moderate thrombocytopenia was the only treatment-related AE documented with Ulocuplumab monotherapy. Only one subject presented a mild infusion reaction on Cycle 1 Day 1. The safety profile in combination with MEC was similar to MEC alone as was the 60 day all-cause mortality (16.3%). A median 2- and 5-fold mobilization of leukocytes and leukemic blasts into the peripheral circulation was reported at day 8, respectively. There was a trend demonstrating that higher CXCR4 expression on AML blasts correlated with a positive clinical response. Reversible and manageable hyperleukoctosis occurred in one subject. Conclusions: This study shows that the blockade of the CXCR4-CXCL12 axis with Ulocuplumab has antileukemic activity and safely improves the historic response rate achieved with MEC alone (i.e.,24-28%). Disclosures Becker: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Etoposide is indicated in the management of refractory testicular tumors and small cell lung cancer. . Foran:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Altman:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Yacoub:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Castro:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Sabbatini:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Dilea:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Wade:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Xing:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Gutierrez:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Cohen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Smith:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding.

Abstract Background BMS-911543 is an oral, selective small-molecule inhibitor of JAK2 (IC50=1.1nM) with potent anti-proliferative and pharmacodynamic effects in cell lines and in vivo models dependent upon JAK2 signaling. In vitro, BMS-911543 demonstrates high selectivity within the JAK family (JAK1 [IC50=356nM], JAK3 [IC50=73nM] or TYK2 [IC50=66nM]) and across a large kinase panel (at 1 µM concentration of BMS-911543, only 8 of 451 kinases were markedly inhibited [≥67%]) It also has little activity in cells dependent on other JAK family pathways. Anti-proliferative responses were observed with BMS-911543 in colony growth assays using primary progenitor cells isolated from patients with JAK2V617F-positive polycythemia vera (PV) (Leukemia 2012;26:280). Methods In a multicenter phase 1/2a study, BMS-911543 was administered orally using a BID dosing schedule, in patients with high-, intermediate-2 or intermediate-1 risk symptomatic primary or secondary MF (JAK2 WT or mutant) with platelet counts ≥50,000/mm3. Patients were not required to have palpable splenomegaly. The aim of the study is to determine safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary efficacy of BMS-911543. Safety was assessed using NCI-CTCAE version 4.0. Treatment effect was assessed using the International Working Group (IWG) response criteria, MF-SAF, BFI, physical examination, spleen and liver volume assessment by MRI, bone marrow morphology, karyotype, V617F mutant allele burden, plasma cytokine analysis, circulating CD34+ cells and other molecular parameters. Current status To date, 84 patients have been treated (dose escalation [n=42]; dose expansion [n=42]) and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was defined as 200mg BID. The summary below represents an interim data analysis of 36 patients from the dose escalation phase dosed at 5, 10, 20, 40, 80, 120, 160, and 200mg BID. Fifteen of 36 (42%) patients had received prior Jak inhibitors (Jaki) including 3 who had received ≥2 Jak inhibitors. PK, PD, Safety, Tolerability and Efficacy After repeat dosing, greater than dose-proportional increase in the Cmax and AUC, and drug accumulation was observed at doses ≥40mg BID. PD analysis indicated inhibition of JAK/STAT pathway signaling activity in peripheral blood mononuclear cells, and modulation of several soluble peripheral blood proteins including IL-6, EPO and Leptin. Eleven patients (31%) had drug-related AEs. The nine hematological AEs included 3 anemia (1 grade 3 and 2 grade 2); 3 neutropenia (grade 4); and single leukopenia (grade 4), thrombocytopenia (grade 4), and reduction in platelet count (grade 2). Nine non-hematological AEs included 3 nausea (grade1/2); amylase increased (grade 3) and lipase increased (grade 3) one each; and grade 1 fatigue, muscle spasms, insomnia, erectile dysfunction one each. Ten patients (28%) discontinued treatment: 4 were attributed to disease progression, 2 to lack of efficacy, 2 at patient’s request, 1 to poor compliance, and 1 to unrelated AE. Spleen volume reductions (SVR) by MRI were observed in Jaki failure and in Jaki naive patients. Of 11 patients treated at 160 and 200mg, 8 patients (73%) had SVR greater than 35% at 3 months. In contrast, 1 of 4 patients treated at 120mg and none treated below 120mg had SVR greater than 35%. Of the patients treated at 160mg and 200mg, more than 50% had MF-SAF reductions > 50%. Overall, 3 patients (8.3%; 2 treated at 10mg BID and 1 at 200mg BID) had an increase in hemoglobin of ≥2g/dL;. Other signs of clinical activity included reductions in V617F mutant allele burden, leukocytosis, leukoerythroblastosis, circulating CD34+ cells, and LDH. Conclusion BMS-911543 was generally well tolerated and has an acceptable safety and efficacy profile. BMS-911543 induced rapid control of constitutional symptoms, and splenomegaly in patients with symptomatic MF, including those previously treated with one or more Jak inhibitors. Updated data from all 84 patients who have been treated in the dose escalation and ongoing expansion phases, including MRI assessments of spleen and liver volume, V617F mutant allele burden and levels of select plasma cytokines, will be presented.</abstract> Disclosures: Pardanani: JW Pharmaceutical Corp.: Clinical trial support, Clinical trial support Other; PharmaMar: Clinical trial support, Clinical trial support Other; Sanofi: Clinical trial support, Publication support services, Clinical trial support, Publication support services Other; Bristol Myers Squibb: Clinical trial support Other. Off Label Use: Use of BMS-911543, Ruxolitinib, Momelotinib, Fedratinib and Pomalidomide for treatment of Myelofibrosis in Clinical Trial setting. Roberts:AbbVie, Inc.: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research: Employee, recieves commercial income related to ABT-199, Employee, recieves commercial income related to ABT-199 Other, Employment. Seymour:Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Verstovsek:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Yoshitsugu:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gestone:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment, Equity Ownership. Phillips:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment, Equity Ownership. Xing:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment, Equity Ownership. Peltz:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lorenzi:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Equity Ownership, Former employment Other. Alland:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment, Equity Ownership. Woolfson:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Equity Ownership, Former employment Other.

Abstract Background: Lenalidomide with dexamethasone (Rd) is a standard of care used for pts with relapsed multiple myeloma (RMM). The randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase 3 study ASPIRE (NCT01080391) is comparing carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) to Rd in pts with RMM. The primary end point is progression-free survival (PFS; assessed by an independent review committee). Secondary end points include overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), health-related quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/QoL), and safety. Methods: Adults with RMM who received 1–3 prior regimens were eligible. Pts were randomized (1:1) to receive KRd or Rd and were stratified by β2-microglobulin levels (<2.5 vs ≥2.5 mg/L), prior bortezomib (no vs yes), and prior R (no vs yes). All pts received lenalidomide (25 mg) on days 1–21 and dexamethasone (40 mg) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of a 28-day cycle. In addition, KRd pts received K as a 10-min infusion on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 during cycles 1–12 (20 mg/m2 [days 1 and 2 of cycle 1]; 27 mg/m2 thereafter); K was omitted on days 8 and 9 during cycles 13–18 and was not administered beyond 18 cycles. Cycles were repeated until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The study had 90% power to detect a 25% reduction in risk for PFS events for KRd vs Rd (hazard ratio [HR]=0.75) at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025. A stratified log-rank test was used for the PFS comparison. Results: Data are presented for KRd followed by Rd throughout the abstract. Between July 2010 and March 2012, 792 pts from 20 countries were randomized. Baseline characteristics were balanced between the 2 groups. Median age was 64.0 years (range: 31.0‒91.0). Pts received a median of 2 prior regimens in each group. In both the KRd and Rd groups, 66% of pts received prior bortezomib; 20% of pts in each arm received prior R. Median treatment exposure was 22 cycles (KRd) and 14 cycles (Rd). At the time of the prespecified interim analysis, the study met the primary end point for PFS (HR=0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57–0.83; P<.0001), with a longer duration of median PFS in the KRd group (26.3 months [mo]; 95% CI: 23.3–30.5) compared with the Rd group (17.6 mo; 95% CI: 15.0–20.6). Median OS was not reached in either group; however, there was a trend toward longer OS with KRd compared with Rd (HR=0.79; 95% CI: 0.63–0.99; P=.018), which did not meet the prespecified statistical boundary at the interim analysis of survival (P=.005). The Kaplan-Meier OS event-free rates at 24 mo were 73.3% (95% CI: 68.6‒77.5) and 65.0% (95% CI: 59.9‒69.5). The ORR was 87.4% (95% CI: 83.7–90.5) with KRd and 66.9% (95% CI: 62.0–71.5) with Rd. Median DOR was 28.6 mo (95% CI: 24.9–31.3) and 21.2 mo (95% CI: 16.7–25.8). In the KRd and Rd groups, 31.8% vs 9.4% achieved a stringent complete response (sCR) or complete response (CR) (sCR: 14.1% vs 4.3%; CR: 17.7% vs 5.1%), and 70.4% and 40.7% achieved ≥very good partial response. KRd consistently improved Global Health Status/QoL compared with Rd over 18 cycles of treatment (P=.0001). Treatment discontinuation due to an adverse event (AE) occurred in 15.2% (KRd) and 17.4% (Rd) of pts. In each group, 7.7% and 8.5% of pts died while still on study treatment or within 30 days of receiving the last dose of study treatment. The most common hematologic treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) (≥grade 3) included neutropenia (29.6% vs 26.5%), anemia (17.9% vs 17.2%), and thrombocytopenia (16.6% vs 12.3%). The most common nonhematologic TEAEs (all grade) included diarrhea (42.3% vs 33.7%), fatigue (32.9% vs 30.6%), and cough (28.8% vs 17.2%). The most common nonhematologic TEAEs (≥grade 3) included pneumonia (12.5% vs 10.5%), hypokalemia (9.4% vs 4.9%), and hypophosphatemia (8.4% vs 4.6%). Other TEAEs of interest (grouped terms; all grade) included dyspnea (22.4% vs 18.0%), hypertension (preferred term; all grade: 14.3% vs 6.9%; grade 3: 4.3% vs 1.8%), acute renal failure (8.4% vs 7.2%), cardiac failure (6.4% vs 4.1%), and ischemic heart disease (5.9% vs 4.6%). Rates of peripheral neuropathy (PN) (grouped terms; all grade) were 17.1% and 17.0%; ≥grade 3 PN was infrequent (2.6% and 3.1%). Conclusion: The addition of carfilzomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone in pts with RMM resulted in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS. KRd had an acceptable safety and tolerability profile and represents a potential new standard of care. Disclosures Stewart: Novartis: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Millenium: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Off Label Use: Carfilzomib is approved in the United States for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who have received at least two prior therapies including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory agent and have demonstrated disease progression on or within 60 days of completion of the last therapy. ASPIRE is a randomized, multi-center, phase 3 study investigating the use of carfilzomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone for the treatment of patients with relapsed multiple myeloma who have received 1–3 prior regimens.. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria. Masszi:Janssen Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Spicka:Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Oriol:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Hájek:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosiñol:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Siegel:Onyx: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Niesvizky:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Jakubowiak:Onyx Pharmaceticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. San Miguel:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millinnium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ludwig:Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Zojwalla:Onyx Pharmaceticals, an Amgen subsidiary: Employment, Equity Ownership. Tonda:Onyx Pharmaceticals, an Amgen subsidiary: Employment, Equity Ownership. Xing:Onyx Pharmaceticals, an Amgen subsidiary: Employment, Equity Ownership. Moreau:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Palumbo:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janseen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genmab A/S: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen, Inc,: Consultancy, Honoraria; Array BioPharma: Honoraria.