Fonseca, Rafaël

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

Introduction: New targets and treatment modalities are needed for multiple myeloma (MM). Fc receptor-homolog 5 (FcRH5) is a type I membrane protein that is expressed on B cells and plasma cells, and is found on myeloma cells with near 100% prevalence. BFCR4350A, a humanized immunoglobulin G-based T-cell-engaging bispecific antibody (bsAb), targets the most membrane-proximal domain of FcRH5 on myeloma cells and CD3 on T cells. Dual binding facilitates efficient immunological synapse formation, resulting in T-cell activation and potent killing of myeloma cells (Li et al. Cancer Cell 2017). GO39775 (NCT03275103) is an ongoing, multicenter Phase I trial evaluating the safety, activity, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics of BFCR4350A monotherapy in pts with relapsed/refractory (R/R) MM. We present dose-escalation data from the single step-up dosing cohort (Arm A). Methods: All pts have R/R MM for which no established therapy is available, appropriate, or tolerated. Prior exposure to CAR-T cells, T-cell engaging bsAbs, and antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), including those targeting BCMA, is allowed. In dose-escalation, pts receive BFCR4350A by IV infusion in 21-day cycles (Q3W). In Arm A, a single step-up dose is used in Cycle (C) 1 to mitigate the risk for cytokine release syndrome (CRS), with the step dose (0.05-3.6mg) given on C1 Day (D) 1 and the target dose (0.15-132mg) given on C1D8, and on D1 of each subsequent cycle. Results: At cut-off (April 13, 2020), 51 pts (median age: 62.0 years [range: 33-80]; high-risk [HR] cytogenetics [1q21, t(4;14), t(14;16), or del(17p)]: 28 pts) had been enrolled into Arm A. Median number of prior lines of therapy was 6 (range: 2-15). Prior treatments included: proteasome inhibitors (PIs), 100% (94.1% refractory); immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), 100% (98.0% refractory); anti-CD38 mAbs, 78.4% (92.5% refractory); autologous stem cell transplant, 86.3%. Overall, 66.7% of pts were triple-class refractory (≥1 PI, ≥1 IMiD, and ≥1 anti-CD38 mAb), and 94.1% of pts were refractory to their last therapy. At cut-off, 46/51 pts were evaluable for efficacy. Responses were observed at the 3.6/20mg dose level and above, in 15/29 pts (51.7%) (Table). Responses included 3 stringent CRs, 3 CRs, 4 VGPRs, and 5 PRs (Table). At the 3.6/20mg dose level and above, responses were observed in pts with HR cytogenetics (9/17), triple-class refractory disease (10/20), and prior exposure to anti-CD38 mAbs (11/22), CAR-Ts (2/3), or ADCs (2/2). Duration of response data are evolving, with 6/15 pts in response for >6 months at cut-off. Median follow-up for safety was 6.2 months (range: 0.2-26.3 months). Almost all pts (49/51) had ≥1 treatment-related AE. The most common treatment-related AE was CRS (Lee et al. 2014 criteria; 38/51 pts, 74.5%). CRS was Grade (Gr) 1 in 20 pts (39.2%), Gr 2 in 17 pts (33.3%), and Gr 3 in 1 pt (2%) (due to Gr 4 transaminase elevation). CRS was most common in C1 (38 pts) and was uncommon or absent in subsequent cycles (4 pts). Most CRS events (49/58, 84.5%) resolved within 2 days. 18/38 (47.3%) pts with CRS received tocilizumab and/or steroids. Other treatment-related AEs in ≥5 pts were neutropenia and lymphocyte count decreased (6 pts each, 11.8%), aspartate aminotransferase increased and platelet count decreased (5 pts each, 9.8%). Treatment-related Gr 3-4 AEs (20 pts, 39.2%) in ≥3 pts were lymphocyte count decreased (6 pts, 11.8%), neutropenia (5 pts, 9.8%), anemia and platelet count decreased (3 pts each, 5.9%). No treatment-related Gr 5 (fatal) AEs were observed. Treatment-related AEs leading to withdrawal of treatment were uncommon (1 pt, 2.0%). One DLT (Gr 3 pneumonia) was observed in the 3.6/90mg cohort, but the MTD was not reached. BFCR4350A PK was linear across the active dose levels tested and the estimated half-life was supportive of the Q3W dosing regimen. Conclusions: BFCR4350A monotherapy demonstrates promising activity in heavily pre-treated R/R MM, with deep and durable responses observed in pts with HR cytogenetics, triple-class refractory disease, and/or prior exposure to anti-CD38 mAbs, CAR-Ts, or ADCs. Toxicity was manageable, with C1 single step-up dosing effectively mitigating the risk for severe CRS and allowing escalation to clinically active doses. Updated data will be presented. Disclosures Cohen: Novartis: Other: Patents/Intellectual property licensed, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: 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; Takeda,: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech/Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Harrison:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: wrt panobinostat; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Haemalogix: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Krishnan:Sutro: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Z Predicta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Stock BMS, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy. Fonseca:Amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Aduro: Consultancy; OncoTracker: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Forsberg:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Genentech, Inc., Sanofi, Karyopharm, Abbvie: Research Funding. Spencer:AbbVie, Celgene, Haemalogix, Janssen, Sanofi, SecuraBio, Specialised Therapeutics Australia, Servier and Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen, Celgene, Haemalogix, Janssen, Servier and Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Haemalogix, Janssen, Sanofi, SecuraBio, Specialised Therapeutics Australia, Servier and Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene, Janssen and Takeda: Speakers Bureau. Berdeja:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glenmark: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Bioclinica: Consultancy; Teva: Research Funding; Vivolux: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Cellularity: Research Funding; Acetylon: Research Funding; CURIS: Research Funding; Legend: Consultancy; Lilly: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; EMD Sorono: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy; Poseida: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Servier: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kesios: Research Funding. Li:Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Current Employment. Choeurng:Genentech, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Vaze:Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Samineni:Genentech, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Sumiyoshi:Genentech, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months. Cooper:Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Fine:Genentech, Inc.: Current Employment; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Trudel:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: BFCR4350A is a humanized IgG-based T-cell-engaging bispecific antibody that targets the most membrane-proximal domain of FcRH5 on myeloma cells and CD3 on T cells. Dual binding facilitates efficient immunological synapse formation, resulting in T-cell activation and killing of myeloma cells. BFCR4350A is an investigational agent.

Introduction: Response assessment at day 100 post Autologous Stem Cell Transplant (ASCT) is associated with long-term relapsed free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in multiple myeloma (MM). The International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) are the preferred criteria to define best response to treatment and define relapse. In the last years, response assessment has incorporated minimal residual disease (MRD) status -associated with improved RFS and OS (Munshi et al); and PET/CT combined with clinical characteristics -also associated with favorable outcomes (Zamagni et al. NCT01910987; MMY3033). The 2016 IMWG MRD criteria, combined imaging (PET/CT) plus next-generation sequencing (NGS) MRD-negative to define complete response (CR). To our knowledge, there is limited data examining the correlation and prognostic value of MRD and FDG-PET/CT at day 100 post ASCT in MM. IN this study, we aimed to determine the prognostic valued of MRD by NGS combined with PET/CT in RFS and OS status after high dose chemotherapy and ASCT in MM. Methods: Patients who underwent ASCT for MM at Mayo Clinic Arizona and had MRD and PET/CT data were included in the study. Clinical data was obtained via retrospective chart review. Cytogenetic risk (CyR) was classified using the mSMART criteria . Disease and ASCT related characteristics were compared by MRD status. MRD was measured by NGS on bone marrow aspirates using the previosly validated clonoSEQ ® Assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies Corporation, Seattle, USA) tracking the IgH, IgK and IgL rearrangements at a minimum sensitivity level of 10-5. MRD was defined by residual clonal cells per million nucleated cells as: negative= 0, borderline= 1-5, positive >5. PET/CT scans were performed locally at baseline and at day 100. Comparisons were performed using the chi-square test for categorical variables, Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuos variables, McNemar's test and Cohens's Kappa for agreement measures. Results: A total of 103 patients had matched MRD and PET/CT assessment around day 100 (+/-9 days) and were included in the analysis. Median age at diagnosis was 62 years (range, 54-66 years), 71 patients (68.9%) were men. CyR was standard risk in 49 (47.6%), high-risk in 39 (37.9%) and unknown in 15 (14.6%) patients. Most 75 (72.8%) patients were MRD positive, 16 (15.5%) were MRD negative, and 12 (11.7%) borderline. The median main MRD clone detected was 64 (range 0-91,874). 70 patients (68%) and 33 (32%) had a negative and positive PET/CT respectively. The median follow-up time was 18 months (range, 13-31 months). At the time of data analysis, 10 patients (9.7%) had relapsed and only 4 (3.9%) had died. There was a high-correlation between MRD status and PET/CT, 31 patients (93.9%) with positive PET/CT were also MRD positive (p=0.0027). There were no statistical differences between PET/CT and CyR (p=0.95). We analyzed the correlation using the FREQ procedure (McNemars's test); there was a strong association between positive PET/CT and positive MRD in 31/33 patients (93.9%, high sensitivity), and low association for negative PET/CT the negative/borderline MRD in 26/70 (37.1%, low specificity; p<0.001). The agreement measure between the PET/CT and MRD using negative/borderline combined had a kappa of 0.23 (95% CI 0.11, 0.35) indicating a fair agreement beyond chance (Figure 1). PET/CT-CT was a statistically significant predictor of worse RFS (HR 3.53, 95%CI: 1.02-12.24, p<0.0337) and OS (HR 11.38, 95%CI: 1.18-109.56, p<0.0078) (Figure 2-3, respectively). MRD was not predictive of neither RFS (HR 1.72, 95%CI: 0.36-8.14, p<0.49) or OS (p<0.16). Conclusions: In conclusion, we demonstrate that the combination of MRD by NGS (clonoSEQ ®) and PET/CT at day 100 are complementary and have a high sensitivity (true positive rate) and fair correlation of agreement but low specificity (true negative rate). PET/CT was the best most sensitive technique to prognosticate RFS and OS. We did not find prognostic correlation of MRD with RFS and OS. However, our findings might be confounded by the low risk of relapse and death, a longer follow-up may demonstrate clinically important differences. Our results add evidence that MRD plus PET/CT improve the definition of CR in MM patients post ASCT. Prospective studies are needed to elucidate the optimal timing and role of combined MRD, PET/CT with other prognostic markers of clinical outcomes. Disclosures Larsen: Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Oncology: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fonseca:Juno: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Aduro: Consultancy; OncoTracker: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy.

8521 Background: Several clinical and molecular prognostic factors (e.g, International Staging System [ISS] stage, plasma cell labeling index, genomic models) exist for multiple myeloma (MM). We hypothesized that exploiting gene signatures representative of oncogenic pathway deregulation (i.e., Ras, Myc, etc.), would improve MM prognostication and also aid with the identification of novel therapeutic targets. Methods: Using a discovery cohort (n=47) of patients with MM and corresponding gene expression data, we built upon current molecular risk-stratification and devised a Bayesian genomic (“metagene”) model for prognosis. We validated that model in an independent patient cohort (n=207). Finally, we incorporated ISS staging and clinical variables to construct a combined Clinico-Genomic Risk Stratification System. We further validated the combined model in a separate cohort (n=72), in a blinded manner. Results: Using gene signatures predictive of oncogenic pathway activation in the discovery cohort, we identified specific patterns (metagenes) of signaling pathway activation with prognostic relevance. In an independent validation cohort, this metagene-based model accurately predicted event free survival (EFS) independently of ISS (multivariate hazard ratio [HR] 3.4 for ISS stage, and 5.4 for the metagene model, p=0.002). Using multivariate risk modeling, we incorporated ISS staging and the metagene model into a Clinico-Genomic System and successfully stratified the validation cohort into three groups (low, intermediate, and high risk) with markedly different EFS (HR 4.2 for intermediate risk and 14.0 for high risk vs. the low risk cohort, p<0.0001). In an additional blinded validation, the Clinico-Genomic System again accurately predicted median overall survival (68.7 [low risk] vs 24.7 [intermediate risk] vs 18.7 months [high risk], p<0.0001); more accurately than either ISS or other reported genomic models. Conclusions: A combined Clinico-Genomic Risk Stratification System, building on patterns of oncogenic pathway activation and ISS staging system, improves upon current prognostic models in MM and identifies novel pathway targets for future therapeutic consideration. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

11041 Background: Twitter (TW) is an essential tool in the medical community. Few studies have examined the use of TW by medical trainees. We aimed to assess its utilization among trainees in hematology-oncology related areas (HORAs). Methods: 576 training programs in HORAs were obtained. We contacted a potential pool of 3,142 trainees. A 50 item survey was distributed between 2/2019-5/2019, focusing on: demographics, professional use, attitudes toward TW, and patient interactions. Responses were analyzed using parametric descriptive statistics. Results: 442 responses (14% response rate) were received; 203 (46%) used a TW account for professional activities. See table for demographics. The most common reasons for using TW were: continuous education (73%), dissemination of information (62%), and networking (62%). > 80% of users have positive views on using TW for: promoting academic discussions (92%), trainees education (89%), and conference networking (83%). 50 (25%) have used TW for collaborations, with abstracts and papers being the most common (20%). Most agreed or strongly agreed that TW: is a useful education tool (89%), and might be useful for career advancement (85%). The most common challenges were: the value of TW content can be decreased by irrelevant content and biased sources (64%), not peer-reviewed (51%), and difficulty searching information (50%). 68% considered that programs should promote the engagement of trainees, but only 21% reported instruction in the use of TW. 83% agree or strongly agree that TW is useful for physicians and patient interactions, but 82% have concerns about legal repercussions. Conclusions: Almost half of trainees in HORAs use TW for professional activities. The most common uses are for education, dissemination of information and networking. Most trainees that use TW have positive views regarding education and academic collaborations. Use of Twitter may strengthen trainees’ education, provide mentorship opportunities, and promote career advancement. Challenges on TW use should continue to be addressed. [Table: see text]

TPS8551 Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease, with estimated median survival of 8–9 months in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) disease (Kumar et al. 2014; Usmani et al. 2016). There is no uniform standard of care for R/R MM, and combinations used in later lines have diminishing responses, especially after re-exposure to previously received classes of therapy (Gandhi et al. 2019). New targets and treatment modalities are needed. Fragment crystallizable receptor-like 5 (FcRH5) is expressed on myeloma cells across lines of therapy, and is overexpressed by myeloma cells with 1q21 gain; expression in healthy tissue is restricted to the B-cell lineage, and is retained in plasma cells (Li et al. 2017). BFCR4350A is an IgG-based T-cell-dependent bispecific antibody that was specifically engineered to target the most membrane-proximal domain of FcRH5 on myeloma cells and cluster of differentiation 3 (CD3) on T cells, with dual binding resulting in efficient immune synapse formation and T-cell killing of myeloma cells. BFCR4350A demonstrates potent killing of plasma cells and patient-derived myeloma cells (including those with low levels of FcRH5 expression) in vitro, and complete depletion of bone marrow plasma cells in primates, without severe or prolonged cytokine release (Li et al. 2017). GO39775 (NCT03275103) is an open-label, multicenter Phase I dose-escalation and dose-expansion trial evaluating the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and activity of BFCR4350A monotherapy in patients with R/R MM. Methods: Patients must be aged ≥18 years and must have R/R MM for which no established therapies are available or appropriate, or be intolerant to those therapies. Patients with prior CAR-T therapy and/or prior BCMA-directed therapy are not excluded. BFCR4350A is administered by intravenous infusion, and q3w dosing with Cycle 1 single-step or multi-step dosing is being investigated in dose-escalation (Arms A and B, respectively). Enrolment into both arms is ongoing, with patients receiving up to 17 cycles of treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary objectives are to evaluate safety (including the maximum tolerated dose and dose-limiting toxicities) and to identify a recommended Phase II dose. Secondary objectives include assessment of PK, activity, immunogenicity, and pharmacodynamic biomarkers. Clinical trial information: NCT03275103 .

The novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, was first detected as a respiratory illness in December 2019 in Wuhan City, China. Since then, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has impacted every aspect of our lives worldwide. In a time when terms such as social distancing and flattening the curve have become a part of our vernacular, it is essential that we understand what measures can be implemented to protect our patients and healthcare workers. Undoubtedly, healthcare providers have had to rapidly alter care delivery models while simultaneously acknowledging the crucial unknowns of how these changes may affect clinical outcomes. This special feature reviews strategies on how to mitigate transmission of COVID-19 in an effort to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with the disease for patients with cancer without infection, for patients with cancer with COVID-19 infection, and for the healthcare workers caring for them, while continuing to provide the best possible cancer care. [Editor’s Note: This article includes the most current information available at time of publication; however, recommendations regarding public safety and practice may change rapidly in this situation. Individuals should get the most up to date information from the CDC website.]

Abstract Background: Multiple mechanisms exist for the positive selection of genes involved in oncogenesis such as gene amplification and transcriptional deregulation associated with chromosome translocations. Here we describe the case of a myeloma cell line that over time acquired extra copies of a derivative chromosome 4 involved in the t(4;14). These changes occurred over time both in vitro (in the generated JMW myeloma cell lines) as well as in vivo from extramedullary myeloma samples collected from the patient at various time points. In the case of the t(4;14)(p16;q32) 30% can be unbalanced translocations, always with loss of the der(14) and consequent loss of the FGFR3 gene expression, suggesting an indispensable role for MMSET located in the der(4). Results: We performed serial analysis on patient samples obtained at 9, 10 and 12 mos from diagnosis, along with a time course analysis of the cell line. At diagnosis the patient tumor cells displayed a complex clinical karyotype subsequently characterized by hypodiploidy, a t(4;14)(p16;q32), 13 monosomy and 17p13.1-. The remaining chromosome 13 and 17 were involved in an unbalanced reciprocal translocation. Notably, over time the cell line duplicated the total chromosome number becoming near-tetraploid. At the time of diagnosis, FISH analysis was performed on the patient sample revealing the translocation t(4;14)(p16.3:q32) in nearly all cells. The t(4;14) was also present in the stable cell line. It was noted that the patient cells exhibited more than one fusion signal per cell for the t(4;14) by FISH. As the disease progresses both in vitro and in vivo, the number of t(4;14)(p16.3:q32) fusion signals detected per cell increased with time suggesting a positive selection of the derivative chromosomes of the translocation. We further analyzed the t(4;14) in the JMW cells by FISH using MMSET/VH, and FGFR3/CH probe combinations. The full-length (MMSET/FGFR3+VH/CH) probe was used to detect the total number of fusions in the JMW cells. At the time of analysis (cell line passage #23), the majority of the cells (69%) had 6 fusion signals per cell while 23% had 5 fusions and 8% of the cells had 4 fusions. We found that most of the cells (88%) displayed 4 fusion signals detected using the MMSET/VH probes. In parallel studies using the FGFR3/CH probes, 61% of the cells had 2 fusion signals and 39% with 1 fusion signal. It is evident that the tumor cells display positive selection of the derivative chromosome der(4) of the t(4;14)(p16.3;q32), accompanied by an increased dosage of the target gene (MMSET) upregulated by the translocation. Conclusion: We present evidence for the amplification of the translocated chromosome in multiple myeloma, which we have termed “trans-amplicons”. Trans-amplicons may provide a selective growth and survival advantage to the myeloma tumor cells in an analogous manner to amplicons of DNA segments, but with much more powerful transcriptional consequences. Importantly, the evolution of genomic instability exemplified by the “trans-amplicons” in the patient cells was paralleled in vitro in the JMW cells.

Abstract Purpose: Lenalidomide (CC-5013) is an analogue of thalidomide and a lead clinical compound in a new group of drugs called IMiDS® which have immunomodulatory properties. Lenalidomide has shown promising results in relapsed refractory myeloma. It has a markedly different side-effect profile compared to thalidomide, with significantly fewer non- hematologic adverse events; myelosuppression, especially neutropenia, is the most common toxicity. We report the results of a phase II trial using the combination of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Rev/Dex) as initial therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Patients and Methods: 34 patients (23 male and 11 female) were enrolled. Lenalidomide was given orally 25 mg daily on days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle. Dexamethasone was given orally at a dose of 40 mg daily on days 1–4, 9–12, 17–20 of each cycle. Patients were allowed to go off treatment after 4 cycles of therapy to pursue stem cell transplantation, but treatment beyond four cycles was permitted at the physician’s discretion. For patients continuing therapy beyond 4 months, the dose of dexamethasone was reduced to 40 mg on days 1–4 of each cycle. Objective response was defined as a decrease in serum monoclonal (M) protein by 50% or greater and a decrease in urine M protein by at least 90% or to a level less than 200 mg/24 hours, confirmed by two consecutive determinations at least 4 weeks apart. Sub-classification as very good partial response (VGPR) required in addition to criteria for partial response, &gt;=90% reduction in serum M protein, 24 hour urine M protein less than or equal to 100 mg, and 5% or fewer plasma cells on bone marrow examination. All patients received aspirin (81 mg or 325 mg daily) as prophylaxis against DVT. Results: The median age was 64 years (range, 32–78). All patients were evaluable for response and toxicity. Thirty-one of 34 patients (91%) achieved an objective response to therapy, including 2 patients (6%) achieving a complete response (CR) and 11 patients (32%) achieving very good partial response. Of the 3 patients not achieving an objective response, two met criteria for minor response and one had stable disease. Responses were rapid; the median time to response was 1 month. Adequate stem cells (&gt;3.0 million CD34 cells/kg body weight) were obtained in all patients who proceeded to autologous stem cell transplantation. Forty-seven percent of patients experienced grade 3 or higher non-hematologic toxicity, most commonly fatigue (15%), muscle weakness (6%), anxiety (6%), pneumonitis (6%) and rash (6%). One patient died on study, and this was attributed to infection unrelated to therapy; the patient had stopped all therapy for over a month before the fatal infection occurred. One patient developed a pulmonary embolism, but recovered with therapy; no other patient developed deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Conclusion: Rev/Dex is highly active and well tolerated in the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma with overall responses in over 90% of patients including complete and very good partial responses in 38%. Two large cooperative group trials are currently testing Rev/Dex as initial therapy for multiple myeloma in the United States.

Abstract Background: Thalidomide is an active anti-myeloma agent with single agent activity in all stages of the disease. When combined with dexamethasone disease response is seen in nearly two-thirds of patients with newly diagnosed MM. Though initially evaluated for treatment because of its anti-angiogenic properties and the finding of increased bone marrow angiogenesis in MM, it has become clear that thalidomide exerts its anti-myeloma activity through several different mechanisms. While the mechanism of action of dexamethasone has been studied to a great extent in the setting of myeloma, the molecular basis for the activity of this combination is largely unknown. Methods: Myeloma cells from patients with newly diagnosed MM who were enrolled in a phase III trial (ECOG E1A00) comparing thalidomide and dexamethasone combination (T+D) with dexamethasone alone (D) were studied by gene expression profiling. Samples from diagnosis were compared to those at four months following therapy to study the effect of treatment. Four patients who achieved a partial response with T+D were studied and in addition compared to four patients achieving a partial response with D alone. Plasma cells from bone marrow aspirates were separated by magnetic bead selection of CD138 positive cells and studied using Affymetrix HG-U133A chips using standard methodology. The arrays were analyzed using Genespring 7.2 software following GCRMA normalization and genes with differential expression between the two datasets were examined. Differentially expressed genes were further analyzed using Ingenuity Pathways Analysis program Results: 549 genes were two fold or more differentially expressed between the pretreatment and post treatment samples in the T+D group, of which 275 genes were mapped to different networks using the Ingenuity program. Examination of the canonical pathways demonstrated several pathways that were altered as a result of the therapy. The most significant pathways included those related to immune function including antigen presentation (multiple HLA class II antigens), and PRG2 (NK cell activator). Several mediators of B cell signaling including CD45, PKC (α ,β), SHP2, and Erk1/2 were up regulated following treatment. Increase in the expression of several adhesion molecules including β integrins, fibronectin, VCAM1, L selectin, and LFA3 were noted. Up regulation of IL-6 signaling pathway including gp130, JAK2 and IL8 were noted following therapy. Striking increase in the gene expression for CXCR4 and its ligand SDF-1α was noted as well. 129 genes were differentially regulated by dexamethasone alone, of which 67 were mapped to different networks. The pathways influenced by the dexamethasone alone differed significantly from that of the combination. Conclusion: This exploratory analysis offers an interesting insight into the potential mechanisms of action of the T+D combination in MM. The up regulation of immune response related genes are in accordance with some of the mechanisms described for thalidomide. Also, the differences observed between the patients receiving T+D vs. D allows for assessment of the effects of thalidomide. These findings need confirmation in a larger study.