Geyer, Susan M.

Abstract Background Patients with glioblastoma (GBM) have a poor prognosis and limited effective treatment options. Bevacizumab has been approved for treatment of recurrent GBM, but there is questionable survival benefit. Based on preclinical and early clinical data indicating that CD105 upregulation may represent a mechanism of resistance to bevacizumab, we hypothesized that combining bevacizumab with the anti-CD105 antibody TRC105 may improve efficacy in recurrent GBM. Methods Phase I dose-escalation/comparative randomized phase II trial in patients with GBM. During phase I, the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of TRC105 in combination with bevacizumab was determined. In phase II, patients were randomized 1:1 to TRC105 and bevacizumab or bevacizumab monotherapy. Patients received TRC105 (10 mg/kg) weekly and bevacizumab (10 mg/kg) every 2 weeks. Efficacy, as assessed by progression-free survival (PFS), was the primary endpoint; safety, quality of life, and correlative outcomes were also evaluated. Results In total, 15 patients were enrolled in phase I and 101 in phase II; 52 patients were randomized to TRC105 with bevacizumab and 49 to bevacizumab monotherapy. The MTD was determined to be 10 mg/kg TRC105 weekly plus bevacizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. An increased occurrence of grade ≥3 adverse events was seen in the combination arm, including higher incidences of anemia. Median PFS was similar in both treatment arms: 2.9 months for combination versus 3.2 months for bevacizumab monotherapy (HR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.75–1.78, P = .51). Quality of life scores were similar for both treatment arms. Conclusions TRC105 in combination with bevacizumab was well tolerated in patients with recurrent GBM, but no difference in efficacy was observed compared to bevacizumab monotherapy.

AbstractFrontline arsenic trioxide (ATO)–based treatment regimens achieve high rates of long-term relapse-free survival in treating acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) and form the current standard of care. Refining prognostic estimates for newly diagnosed patients treated with ATO-containing regimens remains important in continuing to improve outcomes and identify patients who achieve suboptimal outcomes. We performed a pooled analysis of exclusively ATO-treated patients at a single academic institution and from the ALLG APML4 and Alliance C9710 studies to determine the prognostic importance of additional cytogenetic abnormalities and/or complex karyotype. We demonstrated inferior event-free survival for patients harboring complex karyotype (hazard ratio [HR], 3.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.63-8.56; P = .002), but not for patients harboring additional cytogenetic abnormalities (HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 0.78-5.82; P = .142). These data support a role for full karyotypic analysis of all patients with APL and indicate a need for novel treatment strategies to overcome the adverse effect of APL harboring complex karyotype.

Clinical success with intravenous (IV) oncolytic virotherapy (OV) has to date been anecdotal. Here, we conducted a phase 1 clinical trial of systemic OV therapy and investigated the mechanisms of action in responding T-cell lymphoma (TCL) patients. A single IV dose of VSV-IFNβ-NIS was administered to patients with relapsed refractory hematologic malignancies to determine safety and efficacy across 4 dose levels (DL). Correlative studies were undertaken to evaluate viremia, virus shedding, virus replication and immune responses. Fifteen patients received VSV-IFNβ-NIS (7 multiple myeloma, 7 TCL, 1 acute myeloid leukemia); 3 patients were treated at each DL1 through DL3 (0.05, 0.17, and 0.5 x 1011 TCID50), and 6 at DL4 (1.7 x 1011 TCID50). There were no dose limiting toxicities. 3 of 7 patients with TCL had RECIST responses: a 3-month PR at DL2, a 6-month PR and a durable CR ongoing at 20 months at DL4. Viremia peaked at the end of infusion and no infectious virus shedding was detected. Plasma interferon-β levels, a biomarker of VSV-IFNβ-NIS replication, peaked between 4h and 48h post infusion. The patient with CR had robust viral replication with increased ell free DNA in her plasma, a very high peak IFNβ level of 18,213 pg/ml, a strong anti-VSV neutralizing antibody response, and increased numbers of tumor reactive T-cells. VSV-IFNβ-NIS as a single agent was effective in patients with TCL resulting in durable disease remissions in heavily pretreated patients. Correlative analyses suggest that responses may be due to a combination of direct oncolytic tumor destruction and immune-mediated tumor control. Further clinical testing is warranted. (This trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03017820).

Unlike medulloblastoma (MB) in children, robust prospective trials have not taken place for older patients due to the low incidence of MB in adults and adolescent and young adults (AYA). Current MB treatment paradigms for older patients have been extrapolated from the pediatric experience even though questions exist about the applicability of these approaches. Clinical and molecular classification of MB now provides better prognostication and is being incorporated in pediatric therapeutic trials. It has been established that genomic alterations leading to activation of the sonic hedgehog (SHH) pathway occur in approximately 60% of MB in patients over the age of 16 years. Within this cohort, protein patched homolog (PTCH) and smoothened (SMO) mutations are commonly found. Among patients whose tumors harbor the SHH molecular signature, it is estimated that over 80% of patients could respond to SHH pathway inhibitors. Given the advances in the understanding of molecular subgroups and the lack of robust clinical data for adult/AYA MB, the Alliance for Clinical Trial in Oncology group developed the AMBUSH trial: Comprehensive Management of AYA and Adult Patients with Medulloblastoma or Pineal Embryonal Tumors with a Randomized Placebo Controlled Phase II Focusing on Sonic Hedgehog Pathway Inhibition in SHH Subgroup Patients (Adult & Adolescent MedulloBlastoma Using Sonic Hedgehog Trial). This trial will enroll patients 18 years of age or older with MB (any molecular subgroup and risk stratification) or pineal embryonal tumor. Patients will be assigned to one of three cohorts: (1) average risk non-SHH-MB, (2) average risk SHH-MB, and (3) high risk MB or pineal embryonal tumors. All patients will receive protocol-directed comprehensive treatment with radiation therapy and chemotherapy. Patients with SHH-MB in cohort 1 will be randomized to a smoothened inhibitor or placebo as maintenance therapy for one year.

Abstract Background: SARS-Cov-2 infections are associated with increased mortality and morbidity, largely due to inflammatory cascades and cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) is defined by the presence and subsequent expansion of somatic, leukemia-associated driver mutations in apparently healthy individuals with normal blood counts. CHIP has been associated with increased inflammation, with cytokines such as IL1-b, IL6 and TNF-a being elevated at baseline in affected individuals. We hypothesized that the presence of CHIP in patients with COVID-19 would result in excessive inflammation-related mortality and morbidity. Methods: We used the Mayo Clinic COVID-19 database to identify patients with COVID-19 on whom peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) were available for research use (IRB approved). We carried out target-capture next generation sequencing for 220 CH related genes, by previously described methods (1000 x coverage, variant allele fraction/VAF detection limit >0.5%; Kusne Y et al AJH 2021). CHIP was defined by the presence of a CH mutation with a VAF>1% in an individual with normal baseline blood counts. Demographics, blood counts, and inflammatory markers (CRP and cytokine levels- ELISA assay) at COVID-19 diagnosis and during follow-up (as clinically indicated) were collected. COVID-19 disease severity was classified based on the presence and severity of CRS, graded using the Penn Grading Scale (Porter et. al., 2018), and the WHO ordinal scale (WHO Blueprint, 2020). We used Fisher's exact test and the Wilcoxon rank sum test to compare categorical and continuous variables. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. We accounted for differences in age and sex using multivariable-adjusted proportional hazards regression models. Results: Seventy-two CHIP mutations were detected in 56 (25%) of the 227 patients with COVID-19 that had PBMC available; median age 69 years (range; 42-99 years), 61% male. Fifteen (26%) patients had 2 CHIP mutations, while 1 patient had 3 CHIP mutations. Common mutations encountered included DNMT3A (32%) , TET2 (19%) , SF3B1 (8%) , ASXL1 (6%) , MPL (5%) , and TP53 (5%; Figure 1A). COVID-19 patients with CHIP were older in age (median 69 vs 57 years; p<0.0001) and had higher baseline MCP-1 (p=0.04) levels. However, there were no differences in sex, comorbidities, blood counts, IL1-b, IL6 and TNF-a levels between the two groups. The median follow-up for the entire cohort was 9 months. The relative change from baseline in blood counts and inflammatory markers (CRP and cytokines) during follow-up was similar in CHIP and non-CHIP patients, with the exception that COVID-19-onset neutropenia was more common in CHIP patients (8% vs 1%; p=0.017) compared to those without CHIP. At last follow up neutropenia had resolved in all patients. Both groups had comparable number of patients with CRS (61% CHIP vs 53% non-CHIP patients, p=0.354, Figure 1B), however, CHIP patients had more severe CRS (median Penn Grade 3 versus 2 in non-CHIP, p=0.018, Figure 1C). Based on the WHO ordinal scale, CHIP patients were more likely to experience hospitalization with severe disease and death (61% versus 45% in non-CHIP, p = 0.049). Moreover, COVID-19 CHIP patients experienced worse overall survival in comparison to patients without CHIP (median 13.1 months vs not reached, p<0.001, Figure 1D). This association remained consistent after adjusting for age and sex at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis (HR 3.15, 95% 1.32 - 7.55, p = 0.010). At last follow-up, 22 deaths were documented: 13 (23%) in patients with CHIP and 9 (5%) in the non-CHIP group (p=0.02), with the primary cause for mortality being hypoxic respiratory failure (62% in CHIP vs 44% non-CHIP, p=0.04). Conclusions: In this study, we observe an age-independent impact of CHIP on COVID-19 associated inflammatory morbidity (CRS) and mortality (hypoxemic respiratory failure). We are currently carrying out detailed single cell (ssDNA, RNA and ATAC-seq) and proteomic studies (O-link PEA assays) to better elucidate this pathophysiology. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Patnaik: Kura Oncology: Research Funding; StemLine: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Factors contributing to the antitumor activity of systemic oncolytic virotherapy (OV) include (i) generalized innate immune activation due to virus infusion; (ii) direct oncolytic and/or immune-mediated destruction of OV infected tumor cells due to intratumoral spread of the virus infection; (iii) collateral boosting of tumor antigen-specific T cell responses that target uninfected tumor cells. We investigated the relative contributions of these 3 factors T cell lymphoma (TCL) patients (pts) responding to a single intravenous infusion of Voyager-V1, an oncolytic vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) encoding IFNβ and sodium iodide symporter (NIS) on NCT03017820. Of relevance, the virally encoded IFNβ enhances tumor specificity, boosts proinflammatory activity & serves as a convenient serum biomarker of infection. Methods: In a first in human trial, a single infusion of Voyager-V1 was administered to 15 pts with relapsed refractory hematologic cancers; 4 dose levels (DL) were tested (5x10 9, 1.7x10 10, 5x10 10, 1.7x10 11 TCID50); 7 pts had TCL. Cytokine levels and CRS symptoms were determined as a measure of generalized immune activation; serum IFNβ levels were monitored as a pharmacodynamic biomarker of virus infection; antitumor T cell responses were measured using ELISPOT assays. Results: Of 8 TCL pts, 3 had RECIST responses: PR at DL 2, a CR & PR at DL 4. Most pts experience short lived CRS typically resolving within 24 hours of virus infusion. Serum IFNβ levels increased post-therapy in all pts, typically peaking by 24 hours post virus infusion and returning to baseline by median day 10. T cell responses could not be accurately determined in most cases due to suboptimal T cell viability and/or function after thawing of frozen PBMC. Factors contributing to tumor regression in each of the responding pts appeared to differ significantly, as exemplified by the case reports below. Pt (I) with CTCL experienced grade 1 CRS followed by brisk regression of multiple cutaneous lesions. The PR lasted 3 mo, after relapse of an eye lesion, but responses at other sites deepened after the relapsed lesion was irradiated; pt remained off active therapy for the next 2 yrs. Peak serum IFNβ 4 hours post infusion was only 182 pg/ml suggesting that disease response may have been driven by nonspecific innate immune activation associated with the virus infusion. Pt (IV) (CD30+ PTCL/ cutaneous relapse) had short lived grade 2 CRS, then developed signs of IFNβ toxicity with AST elevation and thrombocytopenia. Oral ruxolitinib was administered for 5 days as IFNβ toxicity mitigation leading to normalization of AST and platelets. All PET-avid tumors regressed completely. This CR continues 16 months post virus infusion. Peak serum IFNβ was 18,213 pg/ml strongly suggesting that response was driven by extensive intratumoral amplification of the virus and oncolytic tumor destruction. Robust CTL responses to tumor neoantigens were detected in this pt at baseline indicating that collateral boosting of tumor-specific T cells may have been responsible for the long term maintenance of this CR Pt (V) (CD30+ PTCL) had short lived grade 2 CRS followed by response at all disease sites (including complete normalization of an enlarged FDG-avid spleen). Her PR ended after 6 months due to relapse in cervical lymph nodes. Peak serum IFNβ level was modest, 600 pg/ml & sustained over 48 hours suggesting slower intratumoral spread of the virus infection. The deepening of the response long after resolution of the oncolytic phase points strongly to a contribution from antitumor CTL but the assay was technically unsatisfactory in this pt. Conclusion: Analysis of the correlative data supports that intravenous Voyager-V1 therapy can recruit diverse antitumor effector mechanisms to impact tumor response in pts with heavily pretreated TCL. Importantly, intratumoral virus amplification, which results in high circulating concentrations of IFNβ, does not necessarily lead to tumor regression perhaps because of defective immune cell recruitment and/or activation in some tumors but not in others. This will be further evaluated in future study participants by performing CTL assays on fresh, rather than frozen PBMC. In conclusion, a single IV infusion of Voyager-V1 shows highly promising activity against treatment refractory TCL and should be further advanced as a new single-shot or combination therapy for this therapeutically challenging indication. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Witzig: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Patnaik: StemLine: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding. Dispenzieri: Takeda: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. 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. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Gertz: Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board. Dingli: Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy. Kumar: Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Carsgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Tenebio: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Bergsagel: Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genetech: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: human CRBN mouse; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kapoor: Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Lin: Sorrento: Consultancy; Vineti: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: VSV-IFNβ-NIS is an oncolytic virus in clinical trial for systemic administration in hematologic malignancies

Abstract Background: Clinical data support the combination of an immunomodulatory drug, a proteasome inhibitor, and a glucocorticoid for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). The combination of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and low-dose dexamethasone is a very active, well-tolerated standard of care in the transplant-ineligible NDMM population. Ixazomib, an oral proteasome inhibitor is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone for the treatment of relapsed MM. Given that ixazomib has improved binding kinetics and pharmacologic profile compared with bortezomib, it is expected that these differences will translate into similar, if not improved, efficacy and safety profiles in the upfront setting. A phase l/ll study of lenalidomide, ixazomib, and dexamethasone in previously untreated patients with MM demonstrated that this combination was well-tolerated and active (NCT01217957). More recently, the GRIFFIN study evaluated the addition of the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, daratumumab to lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in transplant-eligible NDMM and demonstrated the ability of daratumumab to improve efficacy of the three-drug combination with an acceptable safety profile. Building upon these data, our study evaluates the addition of daratumumab to the all-oral regimen of lenalidomide, ixazomib, and dexamethasone in transplant-ineligible NDMM. The combination proposed in this study has been evaluated in NDMM irrespective of transplant eligibility and has demonstrated excellent efficacy and tolerability. Responses were rapid with 88% achieving a partial response (PR) or better after 2 cycles (33% very good partial response (VGPR) and 52% VGPR for 29 patients who had completed 4 cycles) with an overall response rate of 95%. 1 In our study, transplant-ineligible NDMM patients will be randomized to receive 12 cycles of induction with lenalidomide, ixazomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab followed by lenalidomide alone versus lenalidomide, ixazomib, and daratumumab. Study Design and Methods: A randomized, phase II clinical trial (NCT04009109) is being conducted to assess the impact on progression-free survival (PFS) of the addition of ixazomib and daratumumab to lenalidomide as maintenance treatment following induction with lenalidomide, ixazomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab. In this ongoing trial, eligible patients are randomized 1:1 to Arm A (12 cycles of lenalidomide, ixazomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab followed by lenalidomide until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or a maximum of 2 years of maintenance therapy) vs. Arm B (12 cycles of lenalidomide, ixazomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab, followed by lenalidomide, ixazomib, and daratumumab until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or a maximum of 2 years maintenance therapy). Eligible patients have NDMM requiring treatment, are ≥18 years, have ECOG PS of 0-2, and must have been deemed ineligible for stem cell transplantation. The primary endpoint is PFS. With a sample size of 188 patients (94 patients per arm) enrolled over a 36-month period and followed for a minimum of 24 months after the close of enrollment, a one-sided alpha=0.10 log rank test will have an 85% chance of detecting an increase in median PFS time from 30 months to 48 months (a hazard ratio of 0.625) with the addition of ixazomib and daratumumab to lenalidomide as a maintenance treatment following induction with ixazomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone, and daratumumab. Secondary outcomes of interest include minimal residual disease, overall survival, changes in body composition, quality of life, psychosocial measures of functional status including social activity and support, psychological state, and nutrition using a geriatric assessment tool, and the association of these psychosocial measures with therapy-associated toxicities. 1Kapoor et al. Blood (2019) 134 (Supplement_1): 864. Support: Alliance Foundation Trials; Janssen, Takeda, Celgene; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures O'Donnell: Bristol Myer Squibb: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Oncopeptide: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Nadeem: GSK: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Bristol Myer Squibb: Consultancy. Dinner: Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Yee: Takeda: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy. Mo: Karyopharm: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eli Lilly: Consultancy. Tuchman: Karyopharm: Research Funding; Shattuck Labs: Consultancy; Sanofi / Genzyme: Consultancy, Research Funding; Caelum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy. Raje: Caribou: Other; Janssen: Other; bluebird bio: Other; Amgen: Other; Celgene: Other; BMS: Other. Richardson: AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Protocol Intelligence: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract PURPOSE Standard of care for craniopharyngiomas is surgery with or without radiotherapy (RT). Cohort A of Alliance A071601 evaluated the efficacy of BRAF/MEK inhibition with vemurafenib/cobimetinib in patients with previously untreated papillary craniopharyngiomas (PCP), which carry the BRAF V600E mutation. Cohort B is currently enrolling patients with recurrence after RT. In a correlative analysis, we examined changes in RT volumes after BRAF/MEK therapy in Cohort A. METHODS Previously unirradiated patients with BRAF-mutated PCP were treated with vemurafenib/cobimetinib. Sixteen patients had scans available before starting vemurafenib/cobimetinib (“pre-therapy”) and after completing therapy (“post-therapy”). Two patients went off study treatment after 8 and 9 days due to side-effects and were excluded for this analysis. Gross target volumes (GTV) were contoured on pre-therapy and post-therapy scans. On post-therapy scans, an additional target comprising gross disease and at-risk regions for microscopic residual disease (GTV-micro) was defined and considered the treatment volume. Clinical target volume (CTV) was a 5-mm uniform expansion on pre-therapy GTV and post-therapy GTV-micro. Volumes were independently reviewed by two radiation oncologists. Changes in volumes from pre- versus post-therapy were compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS In 14 patients evaluated, 57% were female and median age at enrollment was 49.5 years (range 33-83). Median time on treatment was 8.9 months (range 4.0-18.0). Median GTV pre-therapy was 3.8 mL (range 0.2-23.4) versus 0.3 mL (range 0.0-3.2) post-therapy (p=0.0001) and 1.7 mL (range 0.1-8.0) post-therapy GTV-micro (p=0.0001). Median CTV pre-therapy was 13.7 mL (range 2.8-51.8) versus 9.1 mL (range 2.2-27.5) post-therapy (p=0.0001). All tumors abutted the optic chiasm pre-therapy, only 6 did post-therapy. CONCLUSIONS Vemurafenib/cobimetinib resulted in smaller RT volumes. BRAF/MEK inhibitors could reduce RT volumes and spare dose to surrounding normal structures. Enrollment to Cohort B of Alliance A071601 should be considered for patients with recurrent tumors after RT. SUPPORT https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org

3030 Background: Diarrhea, HFS, and hypertension are common toxicities of sorafenib. No markers are validated to predict patients at risk of these toxicities. This study aimed to identify genetic predictors of sorafenib-induced toxicities. Methods: A two-step, discovery-validation approach was used. The discovery set included 140 renal cell carcinoma patients from the TARGET study treated with sorafenib (400 mg twice daily) and genotyped for 1040 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 56 genes. The three most statistically significant SNPs associated with grade ≥2 composite toxicity (either hypertension, diarrhea, HFS, or other skin toxicities, CTCAE v.3.0) were tested for association with grade 3 composite toxicity (either hypertension, diarrhea, or HFS, CTCAE v.4.0) in a validation set of 240 hepatocellular carcinoma patients from Alliance/CALGB 80802 treated with sorafenib (400 mg twice daily) alone or with doxorubicin. Associations between SNPs and composite toxicity was performed by logistic regression, with adjusting covariates (age, gender, race, and treatment arm, the latter two covariates for the validation set only). A meta-analysis odds ratio (OR) of each SNP-grade 3 toxicity association between the discovery and validation sets was obtained by inverse variance to point toward effects specific to a type of toxicity. Results: In the discovery set, the top three SNPs associated with grade ≥2 composite toxicity were rs12366035 (C>T, minor allele frequency, MAF 0.34) in VEGFB (p 0.0007), rs4035887 (G>A, MAF 0.49) in EPAS1 (p 0.0021), and rs4864950 (T>A, MAF 0.23) in KDR (p 0.0058). These SNPs were genotyped in the validation set and only rs4864950 in KDR was replicated. No grade 4 toxicities were reported. Similar to the discovery set (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.29-4.51), the A allele of rs4864950 increased the risk of grade 3 composite toxicity (p 0.032, OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.70-4.27) in the validation set. Grade 3 toxicity prevalence in the discovery and validation sets were 3.6% and 7.4% diarrhea, 8.6% and 12.3% HFS, 3.6% and 8.8% hypertension, respectively. The meta-analysis of the two datasets showed that the A allele of rs4864950 increased the risk of grade 3 diarrhea (p 0.045, OR 3.09, 95% CI 1.03-9.29), grade 3 HFS (p 0.012, OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.24-5.37), but not grade 3 hypertension (p 0.207, OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.18-1.45). Conclusions: We provide the first evidence of clinical validity of a marker of sorafenib-induced diarrhea and HFS. Sorafenib inhibits VEGFR2 (coded by KDR), leading to epithelial hypoxia and causing diarrhea and HFS. Variant rs4864950 might affect the function VEGFR2, which, during VEGFR2 inhibition, increases the risk of diarrhea and HFS. This SNP is common and can be genotyped in patients before receiving sorafenib for a better risk assessment. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org ClinicalTrials.gov Id: NCT01015833.

2500 Background: Oncolytic virotherapy is a novel immunomodulatory therapeutic approach for relapsed refractory hematologic malignancies. The Indiana strain of Vesicular Stomatitis Virus was engineered to encode interferon beta (IFNβ) and sodium iodine symporter (NIS) to produce VSV-IFNβ-NIS. Virally encoded IFNβ serves as an index of viral proliferation and enhances host anti-tumor immunity. NIS was inserted to noninvasively assess viral biodistribution using SPECT/PET imaging. We present the results of the phase 1 clinical trial NCT03017820 of systemic administration of VSV-IFNβ-NIS among patients (pts) with relapsed refractory Multiple Myeloma (MM), T cell Lymphoma (TCL) and Acute myeloid Leukemia (AML). Methods: VSV-IFNβ-NIS was administered at 5x109 TCID50 (50% tissue culture infectious dose) dose level 1 to dose level 4, 1.7x1011 TCID50. The primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose of VSV-IFNβ-NIS as a single agent. Secondary objectives were determination of safety profile and preliminary efficacy of VSV-IFNβ-NIS. Correlative objectives included monitoring viremia and virus shedding. Adverse events (AEs) are reported based on CTCAE V4; cytokine release syndrome (CRS) grading was based on Lee (Blood 2014) criteria. Results: 15 pts received VSV-IFNβ-NIS: MM (7), TCL(7) and AML(1); 3 pts were treated at each dose level (DL) 1 through 3 (respectively 0.05, 0.17, and 0.5 x 1011 TCID50), & 6 pts were treated at dose level 4 (1.7x1011 TCID50). There were no dose limiting toxicities. The most frequent grades 3 & 4 AEs were hematologic: lymphopenia (46.6 & 26.6%), neutropenia (13.3% & 6.7%). CRS grades 1 (6.7%) and 2 (46.6%) were the non-hematologic AEs of note; mostly at DL 4. Only 1 pt required transient pressor support. Responses were seen in pts with T cell lymphoma. At DL2, there was a partial response (PR) lasting 3 months in a pt, post 12 prior lines of therapy. At DL4 there was a 6 month PR in a pt with PTCL and another pt with cutaneous relapse of PTCL who enjoys an ongoing CR, more than 1 year post VSV infusion; both pts received 5 prior lines of therapy. Viremia was detected in all pts at the end of infusion only up to 72 hrs post infusion; no infectious virus was recovered in buccal swabs or urine. Neutralizing anti-VSV antibodies were present by day 29. IFN levels were detectable within 30 mins of infusion, peaking between 4 & 48 hrs. TCL pts mounted higher hIFNβ levels within 48 hrs; the pt with CR mounted peak hIFNβ response of 18213.3pg/ml at 48 hrs post infusion, 15-fold higher than any other pt. Conclusions: VSV-IFNβ-NIS can be safely administered by IV infusion among heavily pretreated pts with hematologic malignancies. VSV-IFNβ-NIS as a single agent appears to be most effective at DL4 among patients with TCL, with an ongoing CR in a patient at DL4 more than 1 year post administration. Future trials of combination strategies with immune-modulatory drugs are currently being planned. Clinical trial information: NCT03017820.