Mesa, Ruben A.

Abstract Basic and clinical cancer research discoveries stemming from the nation's cancer centers have markedly improved outcomes for many cancer patients. Despite this forward momentum in our progress against this complex disease, cancer in all its forms remains a major public health challenge that touches the lives of nearly every American, either directly or indirectly. The newly formed AACR Cancer Centers Alliance will accelerate the pace of discovery by providing an ongoing mechanism for transferring new knowledge, sharing resources, developing national demonstration projects, and driving innovation that impacts cancer science, cancer care delivery, and science and health policy.

Abstract Basic and clinical cancer research discoveries stemming from the nation's cancer centers have markedly improved outcomes for many cancer patients. Despite this forward momentum in our progress against this complex disease, cancer in all its forms remains a major public health challenge that touches the lives of nearly every American, either directly or indirectly. The newly formed AACR Cancer Centers Alliance will accelerate the pace of discovery by providing an ongoing mechanism for transferring new knowledge, sharing resources, developing national demonstration projects, and driving innovation that impacts cancer science, cancer care delivery, and science and health policy.

Abstract Basic and clinical cancer research discoveries stemming from the nation's cancer centers have markedly improved outcomes for many cancer patients. Despite this forward momentum in our progress against this complex disease, cancer in all its forms remains a major public health challenge that touches the lives of nearly every American, either directly or indirectly. The newly formed AACR Cancer Centers Alliance will accelerate the pace of discovery by providing an ongoing mechanism for transferring new knowledge, sharing resources, developing national demonstration projects, and driving innovation that impacts cancer science, cancer care delivery, and science and health policy.

Abstract Basic and clinical cancer research discoveries stemming from the nation's cancer centers have markedly improved outcomes for many cancer patients. Despite this forward momentum in our progress against this complex disease, cancer in all its forms remains a major public health challenge that touches the lives of nearly every American, either directly or indirectly. The newly formed AACR Cancer Centers Alliance will accelerate the pace of discovery by providing an ongoing mechanism for transferring new knowledge, sharing resources, developing national demonstration projects, and driving innovation that impacts cancer science, cancer care delivery, and science and health policy.

Abstract Basic and clinical cancer research discoveries stemming from the nation's cancer centers have markedly improved outcomes for many cancer patients. Despite this forward momentum in our progress against this complex disease, cancer in all its forms remains a major public health challenge that touches the lives of nearly every American, either directly or indirectly. The newly formed AACR Cancer Centers Alliance will accelerate the pace of discovery by providing an ongoing mechanism for transferring new knowledge, sharing resources, developing national demonstration projects, and driving innovation that impacts cancer science, cancer care delivery, and science and health policy.

Summary: Basic and clinical cancer research discoveries stemming from the nation's cancer centers have markedly improved outcomes for many cancer patients. Despite this forward momentum in our progress against this complex disease, cancer in all its forms remains a major public health challenge that touches the lives of nearly every American, either directly or indirectly. The newly formed AACR Cancer Centers Alliance will accelerate the pace of discovery by providing an ongoing mechanism for transferring new knowledge, sharing resources, developing national demonstration projects, and driving innovation that impacts cancer science, cancer care delivery, and science and health policy.

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

Abstract Purpose: Myelofibrosis (MF) is a clonal myeloproliferative neoplasm characterized by systemic symptoms, cytopenias, organomegaly, and bone marrow fibrosis. JAK2 inhibitors afford symptom and spleen burden reduction but do not alter the disease course and frequently lead to thrombocytopenia. TGFβ, a pleiotropic cytokine elaborated by the MF clone, negatively regulates normal hematopoiesis, downregulates antitumor immunity, and promotes bone marrow fibrosis. Our group previously showed that AVID200, a potent and selective TGFβ 1/3 trap, reduced TGFβ1-induced proliferation of human mesenchymal stromal cells, phosphorylation of SMAD2, and collagen expression. Moreover, treatment of MF mononuclear cells with AVID200 led to increased numbers of progenitor cells (PC) with wild-type JAK2 rather than JAK2V617F. Patients and Methods: We conducted an investigator-initiated, multicenter, phase Ib trial of AVID200 monotherapy in 21 patients with advanced MF. Results: No dose-limiting toxicity was identified at the three dose levels tested, and grade 3/4 anemia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 28.6% and 19.0% of treated patients, respectively. After six cycles of therapy, two patients attained a clinical benefit by IWG-MRT criteria. Spleen and symptom benefits were observed across treatment cycles. Unlike other MF-directed therapies, increases in platelet counts were noted in 81% of treated patients with three patients achieving normalization. Treatment with AVID200 resulted in potent suppression of plasma TGFβ1 levels and pSMAD2 in MF cells. Conclusions: AVID200 is a well-tolerated, rational, therapeutic agent for the treatment of patients with MF and should be evaluated further in patients with thrombocytopenic MF in combination with agents that target aberrant MF intracellular signaling pathways.

7016 Background: Many patients (pts) with myelofibrosis (MF) experience anemia resulting from disease or JAK inhibitor therapy. The open-label, phase 2 ACE-536-MF-001 study (NCT03194542) evaluated the safety and efficacy of luspatercept (LUSPA) for the treatment of MF-related anemia. Methods: Eligible pts comprised 4 cohorts based on transfusion dependence (TD, defined as receiving 4–12 red blood cell [RBC] units/84 days [d] immediately up to cycle 1 d 1) and stable ruxolitinib (RUX) treatment; cohort 1: no TD, no RUX; cohort 2: TD, no RUX; cohort 3A: no TD, RUX; cohort 3B: TD, RUX. Pts received subcutaneous LUSPA 1.0 mg/kg (1.33 mg/kg for pts in cohort 3B expansion) with titration up to 1.75 mg/kg in 21-d cycles. Disease response was assessed at d 169 and treatment extended for pts showing clinical benefit; pts were followed for ≥ 3 years (y) post last dose. The primary endpoint was anemia response (defined as 84 consecutive d: ≥ 1.5 g/dL hemoglobin [Hgb] from baseline without transfusion [cohorts 1 and 3A] or RBC transfusion-free [cohorts 2 and 3B]); secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), transfusion frequency, change in Hgb level, and symptom response. Results: Of 95 pts in the ITT group, the most common reason for treatment discontinuation was lack of clinical benefit at d 169 (n = 28). Median (range) age was 71.0 (50–89) y. Most (54.7%) pts had primary MF, intermediate-risk 2 disease (75.8%), and > 2 y since initial diagnosis (74.7%). Median prior RUX therapy was 18.1 months (cohorts 3A/3B) and 84.7% of pts had baseline transfusion burden 6–12 units/84 d (cohorts 2/3B). Mean treatment duration was 42.8 weeks. Cohort 3B had the highest anemia response rate with 26.3% (95% CI, 13.4–43.1) of pts transfusion independent during the primary treatment period and 31.6% (95% CI, 17.5–48.7) transfusion independent during the entire treatment period; median (range) DOR was 448 d (85–1582). In cohort 3B: 19 (50.0%) pts had reduced transfusion burden by ≥ 50% during the primary treatment period; 8 (21.1%) pts achieved mean Hgb increase ≥ 1.5 g/dL from baseline throughout the entire treatment period and 6 (15.8%) achieved a mean ≥ 50% reduction in symptom score from baseline. Overall, 47.4% of pts had ≥ 1 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE), most frequently hypertension (17.9%, 5.3% grade ≥ 3); 3.2% of pts had a serious TRAE. One TRAE led to LUSPA discontinuation. Two (2.1%) pts had transformation to acute myeloid leukemia. Nine pts died on treatment from: post-procedural hemorrhage, pneumonia, intracranial hemorrhage, septic shock, ischemic stroke, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, renal failure, pneumonitis, and myelofibrosis (n = 1 each); no deaths were considered related to the study drug. Conclusions: In pts with MF, the safety profile of LUSPA was consistent with previous studies and efficacy results showed promising improvements in anemia and transfusion burden in all cohorts. Clinical trial information: NCT03194542 .