Citations

Abstract Introduction Axi-cel is an autologous anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy approved by the US FDA 10/18/2017, for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory (r/r) large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL), transformed lymphoma (tFL), and high-grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBCL) who have failed at least two prior systemic lines of therapy. In the pivotal ZUMA-1 trial, 108 patients (pts) with r/r DLBCL were treated with axi-cel: the best overall response rate (ORR) was 82% and complete response (CR) rate was 58%. At a median follow-up of 15.4 months, 42% of the pts had ongoing remission (Neelapu and Locke et al. NEJM 2017). Grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome (CRS) by Lee criteria and neurologic events (NEs) occurred in 13% and 31% of the pts, respectively. Here, we evaluated the real world outcomes of pts treated with standard of care axi-cel under the commercial FDA label. Methods and Results Seventeen US academic centers contributed data to this effort independently of the manufacturer. As of 6/30/2018, 211 pts were leukapheresed with intention to manufacture commercial axi-cel. Of these, 165 (78%) pts completed axi-cel infusion as of 6/30/18 and a further 23 (11%) pts are scheduled for axi-cel infusion in July 2018. Of the 23 remaining pts, 7 (3%) received axi-cel therapy on ZUMA-9 expanded access trial (NCT03153462) due to non-conforming cell therapy product, 15 (7%) pts died before axi-cel infusion (14 from lymphoma progression and 1 from sepsis) and 1 (1%) patient attained CR from bridging therapy and was not infused. Safety was evaluable in 163 pts receiving axi-cel. Grade ³3 CRS and NEs occurred in 7% and 31% of pts. Tocilizumab was administered in 62% of pts and 57% received corticosteroids. Outside of lymphoma progression, 3 deaths occurred post-axi-cel; 1 due to HLH, 1 due to systemic candidiasis, and a third due to septic shock. There were no grade 5 NEs observed. Response assessment was done for pts infused with axi-cel and who were re-staged at day 30 and/or day 100, or were deemed to have clinical progression. Of 112 pts evaluable at day 30, ORR was 79% with 50% CR, 29% PR, 6% SD and 14% with PD. Of 39 pts evaluable at day 100, 59% of pts had ongoing response (CR 49%, PR 10%). At the time of abstract submission, more detailed patient characteristics and treatment course data were available in 134/165 pts infused. Median age was 59 (range 21-82) with 57% male. Performance status (PS) was ECOG 0-1 (81%), ECOG 2 (16%) and ECOG 3 (3%). By histology, 61% of pts had DLBCL including HGBCL, 31% had tFL and 8% PMBCL. Thirty-one percent had a prior autologous stem cell transplant. Bridging therapy between apheresis and infusion was given in 56% of patients, the majority of which consisted of chemotherapy. Sixty-six of 134 (49%) would not have met eligibility criteria for ZUMA-1 at the time of leukapheresis. Common criteria that would have made these patients ineligible for ZUMA-1 included ECOG PS >1 (n = 22), platelets <75k (n = 17), GFR <60 (n =12), active DVT/PE (n = 13), liver enzyme abnormalities (n = 10), a history of CNS lymphoma (n = 8), recent checkpoint inhibitor therapy (n = 7), ejection fraction <50% (n = 4), prior CD19 CAR T therapy (n = 4), and prior allogeneic transplant (n=2). Median time from leukapheresis to start of conditioning chemotherapy was 21 days and median time from leukapheresis to axi-cel infusion was 26 days. Median hospitalization period was 14 days. Conclusions This multicenter retrospective study delineates the real world outcomes of axi-cel CAR T-cell therapy for r/r aggressive B-cell lymphoma when used as a standard of care. Though limited by relatively short follow up, 30 day responses in the real world setting are comparable to the best responses observed on the pivotal ZUMA-1 clinical trial (Table 1). Importantly, safety appears comparable to the ZUMA-1 trial despite nearly half the pts failing to meet ZUMA-1 eligibility criteria. Updated results including PFS and OS will be presented at the meeting. L.J.N. and M.D.J. contributed equally; D.B.M., S.S.N. and F.L.L. contributed equally. Disclosures Nastoupil: Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therappeutics: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Juno: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Spectrum: Honoraria. Lunning:Celgene: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Genzyme: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy. Reagan:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. McGuirk:Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Honoraria, Other: speaker, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: travel accommodations, expenses, speaker ; Pluristem Ltd: Research Funding. Deol:Novartis: Consultancy; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Hill:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Andreadis:Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Employment; Astellas: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Juno: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Munoz:Pfizer: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Consultancy; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Westin:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Apotex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vose:Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Legend Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria; Epizyme: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Incyte Corp.: Research Funding. Miklos:Genentech: Research Funding; Kite - Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics - Abbot: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding. Locke:Kite Pharma: Other: Scientific Advisor; Cellular BioMedicine Group Inc.: Consultancy; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Scientific Advisor.

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) with refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) have poor outcomes with currently available therapies, with a complete response (CR) rate of 8%, a partial response (PR) rate of 18%, and median overall survival (OS) of 6.6 months (mo) as demonstrated in the 635 pt SCHOLAR-1 meta-analysis (Crump, ASCO 2016; abstract 7516). ZUMA-1 is the first multicenter trial of anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells in refractory, aggressive NHL (NCT02348216). The phase 1 portion of ZUMA-1 showed ongoing CRs at 12+ mos in 43% of pts (Locke, ESMO 2016; abstract 1048O). The pivotal phase 2 portion of ZUMA-1 comprises 2 cohorts based on tumor type: DLBCL (cohort 1) and primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma or transformed follicular lymphoma (cohort 2). Here, we present results of a prespecified interim analysis from cohort 1. Methods: Pts received a target dose of 2 × 106 anti-CD19 CAR T cells/kg after a low-dose conditioning regimen of cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m2) and fludarabine (30 mg/m2) daily for 3 days. The primary endpoint is objective response rate (ORR) per 2007 IWG criteria. Key secondary endpoints include duration of response, frequency of adverse events (AEs), and levels of CAR T cells and serum cytokines. Key inclusion criteria include age ≥18 years, ECOG performance status (PS) 0-1, and refractory disease defined as progressive disease or stable disease as best response to last line of therapy, or disease progression ≤12 mos after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Pts must have received a prior anti-CD20 antibody and an anthracycline-containing regimen. A prespecified interim analysis was to be conducted to determine early efficacy with a nominal alpha level of 0.017 in 50 treated pts in cohort 1 with a minimum follow-up of 3 mos. Results: In total, 111 pts from 22 institutions were enrolled and leukapheresed, and 101 pts received KTE-C19. As of August 24, 2016, 51 pts in cohort 1 were eligible for analysis. Median age was 58 years (range, 25-76), 73% were male, 71% had ECOG PS 1, 78% were refractory to ≥2 lines of therapy, 20% relapsed ≤12 mos of ASCT, and 61% were treated with ≥3 lines of prior therapy. KTE-C19 was successfully manufactured in 99% of pts enrolled. Average turnaround time from apheresis to receipt of KTE-C19 at the clinical site was 17.4 days. With an ORR of 76%, the study met the primary endpoint (P<0.0001; exact binomial test comparing observed ORR to a historical control assumption of 20%), with 47% CRs and 29% PRs. 92% of responses occurred within the 1st mo, and 39% of pts had ongoing responses (CR in 33%) at 3 mos. Responses were seen across key covariates, including refractory subgroup (refractory to chemotherapy=76%, relapse post ASCT=80%). Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free survival at 1 and 3 mos were 92% and 56%, respectively. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs were neutropenia (67%), anemia (39%), thrombocytopenia (29%), febrile neutropenia (27%), and encephalopathy (24%). Grade ≥3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic events occurred in 20% and 29% of pts, respectively. There was 1 grade 5 KTE-C19-related event of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis. CAR T cells expanded within 14 days of KTE-C19 infusion, and peak expansion was associated with ongoing response at mo 3 (P=0.008). Pts who developed grade ≥3 neurological events had increased serum levels of IL-15 (P=0.0002), IL-6 (P=0.003); IL-10 (P=0.009) and IP-10 (P=0.0003). Cytokines/chemokines returned to baseline levels in most pts by day 28. Data from 93 pts with at least 1 mo of follow-up at the data cutoff will be presented. Conclusions: ZUMA-1 is the first reported multicenter trial of CAR T cell therapy in pts with refractory aggressive NHL. KTE-C19 induced a nearly 6-fold higher CR rate compared to historical outcomes in SCHOLAR-1. Efficacy strongly associated with peak CAR T levels. Central manufacturing, logistics, and AE management were successfully implemented across 22 sites, most with no prior CAR T therapy experience. Results from cohort 2 of ZUMA-1 are also presented (Abstract #998). KTE-C19 demonstrated significant clinical benefit in pts with no curative treatment options. Supported in part by funding from The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Therapy Acceleration Program®. Drs Neelapu and Locke contributed equally to this study. Disclosures Neelapu: Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Locke:Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Miklos:pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Jacobson:Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Siddiqi:Pharmacyclics: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau. Lin:Mayo Clinic: Employment; Janssen: Research Funding. Timmerman:Bristol-Myers Squibb, Kite Pharma, Valor Biopharmaceuticals, Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Genmab, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Goy:COTA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Research funding for clinical trials through institution, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Research funding for clinical trials through institution; Acerta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Other: Research funding for clinical trials through institution. Smith:Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Spectrum: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria. Deol:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Avivi:Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical center: Consultancy, Other: consultancy to :BMS Roche. Westin:Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spectrum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ProNAi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chavez:Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Levy:Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Five Prime Therapeutics: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Corvus: Consultancy; Dynavax: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Reagan:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Bot:Kite Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rossi:Kite Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Navale:Kite Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jiang:Kite Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Aycock:Kite Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Elias:Kite: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wiezorek:Kite Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Go:Kite Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership.

AbstractAccurate pathologic diagnoses and molecularly informed treatment decisions for a wide variety of cancers depend on robust clinical molecular testing that uses genomic, epigenomic, and transcriptomic-based tools. Nowhere is this more essential than in the workup of brain tumors, as emphasized by the incorporation of molecular criteria into the 2016 World Health Organization classification of central nervous system tumors and the updated official guidelines of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Despite the medical necessity of molecular testing in brain tumors, access to and utilization of molecular diagnostics is still highly variable across institutions, and a lack of reimbursement for such testing remains a significant obstacle. The objectives of this review are (i) to identify barriers to adoption of molecular testing in brain tumors, (ii) to describe the current molecular tools recommended for the clinical evaluation of brain tumors, and (iii) to summarize how molecular data are interpreted to guide clinical care, so as to improve understanding and justification for their coverage in the routine workup of adult and pediatric brain tumor cases.

Abstract Aim A previous study showed significantly greater reductions in number of cigarettes smoked and biomarkers of toxicant and carcinogen exposure in smokers assigned to immediate reduction of nicotine in cigarettes to very low levels versus gradually over time or continued smoking of normal nicotine content cigarettes. This study examines the effects of these approaches on selected biomarkers associated with harmful biological effects. Design Three‐arm, randomized controlled trial. Setting Ten United States academic institutional sites. Participants Daily smokers uninterested in quitting smoking with a mean age of 45.1 [standard deviation (SD) = 13.4)] years and smoking 17.1 (SD = 8.5) cigarettes/day; 43.9% (549 of 1250) female; 60.6% (758 of 1250) white ethnicity. Interventions (1) Smoking cigarettes where nicotine content was immediately reduced to very low levels ( n = 503); (2) smoking cigarettes where nicotine content was gradually reduced, with dose changes occurring monthly ( n = 498); and (3) continued smoking with normal nicotine content cigarettes ( n = 249). Measurements Smokers were assessed at baseline while smoking their usual brand cigarettes, and again at 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 weeks. Outcomes were areas under the concentration time curve (AUC) for the period of study of biomarkers of inflammation, oxidative stress and hematological parameters. Findings No consistent significant differences were observed across groups (Bayes factors showing data to be insensitive), with the only exception being red blood cell size variability, which was observed to be lower in the immediate versus gradual nicotine reduction [mean difference = −0.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) = –0.18, −0.04, P = 0.004] and normal nicotine control groups (mean difference = − 0.15, 95% CI = –0.23, −0.06, P = 0.001). Conclusion It remains unclear whether switching to very low nicotine cigarettes leads to a short‐term reduction in biomarkers of tobacco‐related harm.

Glioma incidence is highest in non‐Hispanic Whites, and to date, glioma genome‐wide association studies (GWAS) to date have only included European ancestry (EA) populations. African Americans and Hispanics in the US have varying proportions of EA, African (AA) and Native American ancestries (NAA). It is unknown if identified GWAS loci or increased EA is associated with increased glioma risk. We assessed whether EA was associated with glioma in African Americans and Hispanics. Data were obtained for 832 cases and 675 controls from the Glioma International Case–Control Study and GliomaSE Case–Control Study previously estimated to have <80% EA, or self‐identify as non‐White. We estimated global and local ancestry using fastStructure and RFMix, respectively, using 1,000 genomes project reference populations. Within groups with ≥40% AA (AFR ≥0.4 ), and ≥15% NAA (AMR ≥0.15 ), genome‐wide association between local EA and glioma was evaluated using logistic regression conditioned on global EA for all gliomas. We identified two regions (7q21.11, p = 6.36 × 10 −4 ; 11p11.12, p = 7.0 × 10 −4 ) associated with increased EA, and one associated with decreased EA (20p12.13, p = 0.0026) in AFR ≥0.4 . In addition, we identified a peak at rs1620291 ( p = 4.36 × 10 −6 ) in 7q21.3. Among AMR ≥0.15 , we found an association between increased EA in one region (12q24.21, p = 8.38 × 10 −4 ), and decreased EA in two regions (8q24.21, p = 0. 0010; 20q13.33, p = 6.36 × 10 −4 ). No other significant associations were identified. This analysis identified an association between glioma and two regions previously identified in EA populations (8q24.21, 20q13.33) and four novel regions (7q21.11, 11p11.12, 12q24.21 and 20p12.13). The identifications of novel association with EA suggest regions to target for future genetic association studies.