Citations

OBJECTIVES: Diabetic gastroparesis (Gp) occurs more often in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) than in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Other diabetic end-organ complications include peripheral neuropathy, nephropathy, and retinopathy (together termed triopathy ). This study determines the prevalence of diabetic complications (retinopathy, nephropathy, and peripheral neuropathy) in diabetic patients with symptoms of Gp, assessing the differences between T1DM and T2DM and delayed and normal gastric emptying (GE). METHODS: Diabetic patients with symptoms of Gp underwent history and physical examination, GE scintigraphy, electrogastrography with water load, autonomic function testing, and questionnaires assessing symptoms and peripheral neuropathy. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-three diabetic patients with symptoms of Gp were studied: 59 with T1DM and 74 with T2DM and 103 with delayed GE and 30 without delayed GE. The presence of retinopathy (37% vs 24%; P = 0.13), nephropathy (19% vs 11%; P = 0.22), and peripheral neuropathy (53% vs 39%; P = 0.16) was not significantly higher in T1DM than in T2DM; however, triopathies (all 3 complications together) were seen in 10% of T1DM and 3% of T2DM ( P = 0.04). Diabetic patients with delayed GE had increased prevalence of retinopathy (36% vs 10%; P = 0.006) and number of diabetic complications (1.0 vs 0.5; P = 0.009); however, 39% of diabetic patients with delayed GE did not have any diabetic complications. DISCUSSION: In diabetic patients with symptoms of Gp, delayed GE was associated with the presence of retinopathy and the total number of diabetic complications. Only 10% of patients with T1DM and 3% of those with T2DM had triopathy of complications, and 39% of diabetic patients with Gp did not have any diabetic complications. Thus, the presence of diabetic complications should raise awareness for Gp in either T1DM or T2DM; however, diabetic Gp frequently occurs without other diabetic complications.

Abstract Background There is a paucity of data regarding financial trends for procedural reimbursement in the field of cardiology. A comprehensive understanding of such trends is important as continued progress is made to advance agreeable reimbursement models in cardiology while maintaining quality of care. Purpose To evaluate monetary trends in Medicare reimbursement rates for 10 commonly utilized cardiology procedures from 2000 to 2018. Methods Reimbursement data was extracted using The Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services of the 10 included Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes in cardiology. The utilized CPT codes included each of the top two most frequently billed codes in the echocardiology, catheterization, pacemaker, electrophysiology, and device integrations divisions of our local cardiology department during the 2017 calendar year. All monetary data for each code was adjusted for inflation to 2018 US dollars (USD) utilizing changes to the United States consumer price index (CPI). If the code was redefined throughout the study period, the correct replacement code was utilized for each year as defined by the procedure. The R-squared and both the average annual and the total percentage change in reimbursement were calculated based on these adjusted trends for all included procedures. Results After adjusting for inflation, the average reimbursement for all procedures decreased by 38.2% from 2000 to 2018. The greatest mean decrease was observed in transthoracic echocardiogram (−64.4%). The only procedure with an increased adjusted reimbursement rate throughout the study period was biopsy of heart lining (+60.4%). From 2000 to 2018, the adjusted reimbursement rate for all included procedures decreased by an average of 2.8% each year, with an average R-squared value of 0.81, indicating a stable decline throughout the study period. Conclusion This is the first study to evaluate trends in procedural Medicare reimbursement for cardiology. When adjusted for inflation, Medicare reimbursement for included procedures has steadily decreased from 2000 to 2018. Increased awareness and consideration of these trends will be important for policy-makers, hospitals, and surgeons in order to assure continued access to meaningful cardiology care both at the local and global level.

Abstract Background Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is common in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). It is not well understood if OSA impacts cardiovascular outcomes in patients with AF. Purpose To investigate patient characteristics and major adverse cardiovascular and neurological events (MACNE) in patients with AF and OSA. Methods Using the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF I) and ORBIT-AF II we compared the adjusted risk of the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke/transient ischemic attack/non-CNS embolism (stroke/SE), and new-onset heart failure (MACNE) according to the presence or absence of OSA, using multivariable adjusted Cox proportional hazard models. Secondary outcomes were the individual components of MACNE. Results Among 22,760 patients with AF, there were 4,045 (17.8%) with OSA at baseline. Median follow-up time was 1.5 (IQR: 1–2.2) years. OSA patients were younger (median [IQR] 68 [61–75] years vs. 74 [66–81] years, were more likely to be male (70.7% vs. 55.3%), and had markedly increased body mass index (BMI) (median 34.6 kg/m2 [29.8–40.2] vs. 28.7 kg/m2 [25.2–33.0]). Those with OSA had a higher prevalence of diabetes (39.2% vs. 25.2%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (20% vs. 12%), heart failure (32.2% vs. 25.1%), and hyperlipidemia (73.2% vs. 66.7%). After adjustment, the presence of OSA was significantly associated with MACNE (HR: 1.16 [95% CI: 1.03–1.31], p=0.011) [Figure]. Stroke/SE was higher in patients with OSA (HR: 1.38 [95% CI 1.12–1.70], p=0.003). Addition of OSA to a model containing the CHA2DS2-VASc risk factors slightly improved discrimination for stroke/SE: CHA2DS2-VASc risk factors alone C-index (Standard Error) was 0.6867 (0.0125) vs. CHA2DS2-VASc risk factors plus OSA 0.6876 (0.0124), p=0.022. Figure 1. Hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals and event rates for the association between obstructive sleep apnea and major adverse cardiovascular and neurological events combined and separately. Abbreviations: OSA; obstructive sleep apnea MACNE; major adverse cardiovascular and neurological events, CV; cardiovascular, TIA; transient ischemic attack. Conclusion One in five patients with AF in community practice had OSA. The presence of OSA was associated with higher risk of MACNE and stroke/SE. Addition of OSA to CHA2DS2-VASc risk factors only slightly improved discrimination for the occurrence of stroke. Acknowledgement/Funding The Danish Heart Foundation, T32 NIH Grant HL079896. The ORBIT-AF registry is sponsored by Janssen.

Abstract Introduction Transformation of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) into Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is a rare, but recognized complication of CLL. The prognosis of CLL with HL Transformation (HT) appears significantly worse than de novo HL, but most series are small and there are limited published data. These reports have prompted several groups to recommend aggressive therapy with stem cell transplantation (SCT) in first complete remission (CR1). We describe the largest reported series of HT patients (pts) with analyses of the clinicobiologic characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes based upon our multi-institutional clinical experience. Methods Pts diagnosed with HT from 01/2000 - 01/2018 were retrospectively identified in 13 tertiary cancer centers. Clinicobiologic characteristics, treatment type, and survival outcomes for each pt were analyzed. Overall survival (OS) was measured from the time of HT diagnosis until time of death. OS estimates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The log-rank test was used to calculate differences in survival. Results Ninety-four pts with HT were identified. Median age at HT was 67 years (yrs; range, 38-85) and 81% of the pts were male. Median time from CLL diagnosis to HT was 5.5 yrs (range, 0-20.2; 7 pts with simultaneous diagnosis of CLL and HL). At initial CLL diagnosis, 31%, 34%, 21%, 10%, and 4% were Rai Stage 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. At CLL diagnosis, 67% (25/37) had an un-mutated IgVH gene, 36% (21/59) had del(13q), 32% (14/44) had trisomy 12, 24% (14/59) had del(11q), and 15% (9/61) had del(17p). Prior to HT diagnosis, pts had a median of 2 (range, 0-12) therapies for CLL. Seventeen (18%) had no prior CLL treatments. Forty-three (46%) and 25 (27%) patients had received purine analogue- and ibrutinib-based therapy prior to HT, respectively. Baseline characteristics at HT are described in Table 1. As initial therapy for HL, the majority of pts (61%, n = 62) received ABVD-based regimens (adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) at full (n = 48) or reduced (n = 14) doses. Of these, CD20 monoclonal antibody was added in 6 and Bruton-tyrosine kinase inhibitor was added in 2. Ten (11%) received a brentuximab-based regimen. Seven (7%) received an RCHOP-based regimen (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone). Six patients (6%) received no therapy for HT due to frailty. Subsequent therapy included autologous SCT and allogeneic SCT in 7 (7%) and 11 (12%) of patients, respectively. Two (2%) and 5 (5%) pts received their autologous and allogeneic SCT while in CR1, respectively. The median number of treatments for HT per pt was 1 (range, 0-5) with 59 (61%) pts only receiving one line of therapy. After HT diagnosis, pts had a median follow-up of 1.6 yrs (range, 0.0 - 15.1). Two-yr OS after HT diagnosis was 72% (95%CI 62 - 83%). The pts who received any CLL directed therapy (n = 80) prior to HT had a significantly lower estimated 2-yr OS of 69% (95%CI 58 - 82%) compared with pts who did not receive any prior CLL-directed therapy (n = 17; 93%; 95%CI 82-100%; p 0.02; Figure 1). Pts who received purine-analogue-based therapy for their CLL prior to HT had a significantly lower estimated 2-yr OS of 60% (95%CI 46 - 79%) compared with pts who did not receive purine-analogue-based CLL-directed therapy prior to HT (n = 51; 83%; 95%CI 73 - 96%; p 0.009; Figure 2). Although limited by small sample size, the pts who underwent SCT for HT in CR1 had a similar 2-yr OS (n = 7; 67%; 95%CI 38-100%) to pts who did not undergo SCT for HT in CR1 (n = 87; 72%; 95%CI 63 - 84%; p 0.46; Figure 3). Conclusions In this retrospective analysis, we describe the largest reported series of pts with HT from CLL. Two-yr survival in pts with HT was shorter than what is historically expected in patients with de novo HL, but longer than what is expected in CLL pts who transform to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Pts with HT who have received prior CLL-directed therapies (specifically purine-analogue-based treatments) are estimated to have a shorter 2-yr OS, likely due to underlying immunosuppression. The majority of pts (61%) only received 1 line of HL therapy and only 20% went on to receive SCT (7% while in CR1), indicating that these patients can have prolonged OS after achieving response to first-line therapy for HT and may not require SCT in CR1. Further study of this rare population is required to determine optimum management. Disclosures Kander: AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Parikh:Gilead: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Shadman:Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Mustang Biopharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Beigene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Qilu Puget Sound Biotherapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy. Pagel:Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Mato:Portola: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Prime Oncology: Honoraria; Regeneron: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Medscape: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hill:Amgen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: 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; Novartis: 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; 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; Seattle Genetics: 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. Danilov:Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding. Phillips:Abbvie: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Brander:Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Acerta: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; DTRM: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; BeiGene: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding. Smith:BMS: Consultancy; Portola: Honoraria. Davids:Surface Oncology: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy; Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy; Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: 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; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Background Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) is a heterogeneous disease whose myriad manifestations result from accumulation of Langerhans cells in a variety of organs most commonly including skin, bone, central nervous system, liver, lymph nodes, and bone marrow. The disease can affect people of any age. Treatment is primarily driven by disease extent and organ involvement and can range from focused radiation or surgery to multi-agent chemotherapy. There is a relatively high recurrence rate following complete remissions with conventional chemotherapy. In the first-time-in-human (FTIH) study of the oral pan-AKT inhibitor afuresertib (GSK2110183), in patients with hematologic malignancies, a patient with refractory multi-system LCH experienced a prolonged period (> 3 years) of clinical benefit on 125mg oral once daily afuresertib. This observation led to the evaluation of the use of afuresertib in patients with LCH. Methods This single-arm, open-label trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of afuresertib, administered at 125 mg once daily, in adults and adolescents with relapsed/refractory LCH and adults with treatment-naïve LCH. Secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics. Diagnosis of LCH was confirmed by pathology review of archival tissue. The Histiocyte Society criteria were used for response evaluation at three and six months with safety and pharmacokinetic assessments performed at pre-specified intervals. BRAF status from archival tissue was evaluated by Sanger sequencing. Results 17 patients (16 adults, 10 females) were enrolled; median age was 38 years (15-75). 3/17 patients had isolated pulmonary disease, 1/17 had single-system multifocal-bone disease, 1/17 had single-system skin disease, and 12/17 had multi-system disease. Seven patients were treatment-naïve; 10 had relapsed/refractory disease, including the one adolescent. The most frequent (>20% of patients) adverse events (AEs), regardless of causality, were nausea (59%), fatigue (59%), upper respiratory infection (47%), diarrhea (47%), dyspepsia (35%), bone pain (39%), asthenia (24%), memory impairment (24%), decreased appetite (24%) and vomiting (24%). Most AEs were Grade 1 or 2 in severity; no Grade 4 AEs were reported and no Grade 3 AEs occurring in more than 1 subject were reported. 6/17 (35%) had afuresertib dose modifications (interruption or reduction). Afuresertib plasma concentrations in the adult patients were similar to values seen in adult patients with other hematologic malignancies in the FTIH study. Following a single dose, the concentration-time profile in the adolescent patient was similar to adults in the FTIH study (Tmax = 3h: Cmax 229 ng/ml: AUC24 = 3893 ng*h/mL). 15 patients had archival tissues collected for BRAF testing; 13 had DNA suitable for analysis. 2/13 was BRAF V600E mutant and 11/13 were BRAF wild type. Upon evaluation of the all-treated patient population, 5/17 (29%) patients were reported as better at the three and/or six month disease assessment. Among the 5 responders, three were treatment-naïve and two had relapsed/refractory disease. The median duration on study for all patients was 214 (44-426) days. For the 5 patients who responded, the median duration on study was 372 (255-426) days. Conclusion The pharmacokinetic and safety profile of afuresertib in patients with LCH was consistent with that observed in patients with other hematologic malignancies evaluated in the FTIH study. Afuresertib was active in patients with both treatment-naïve and relapsed/refractory disease. Additional evaluation, including molecular profiling, may be warranted alone or in combination with BRAF inhibitors or established therapies for LCH to determine the optimal population of patients with LCH who might benefit from afuresertib Disclosures: Vassallo: GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Oliff:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment. Morris:GlaxoSMithKline: Employment. Reedy:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment. Portnoy:GlaxoSmithKline: Stock, prior employee Other. Smith:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment, Equity Ownership. Noble:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment, stock Other. Murnane:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment, stock Other. Szabo:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment. Heaney:Novartis: Research Funding; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Multiple myeloma (MM) is a result of a malignant transformation of plasma cells that is preceded by the presence of an asymptomatic clonal plasma cell expansion, a condition referred to as monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS). We and others have shown familial aggregation of MM and MGUS. Evidence from epidemiologic, family and genome-wide association studies (GWAS) suggests a genetic component underlying MM etiology. GWAS have successfully established 17 common genetic risk loci for MM to date and recently, rare inherited susceptibility variants in the LSD1 / KDM1A and USP45 genes were identified in familial MM / MGUS kindreds. Family-based approaches may be used to elucidate genetic variation contributing to familial MM. Genetic linkage analysis has historically been used to detect the chromosomal location of disease genes. The objective of this study was to conduct a linkage analysis of MM / MGUS families to identify genomic regions for MM / MGUS. Methods Linkage analysis was performed on whole exome sequencing (WES) data generated from germline DNA extracted from peripheral blood from MM / MGUS families ascertained at four sites, of which 79 were selected with 2 or more affected members with any combination of MM or MGUS. Whole exome capture was performed using Agilent SureSelect 38 Mb paired end sequencing and ran on Illumina HiSeq 2000s/2500s; standard analyses for alignment (GRCh37) and quality control were conducted. The Genome Analysis Toolkit's (GATK) HaplotypeCaller in per-sample mode was used to jointly call all the samples together. Quality control included removing variants that had <75% call rate, <8x coverage, or minor allele frequency <0.01 (1KGenomes). The jointly called WES data from the 79 families consisted of 230 individuals, including 119 MM, 93 MGUS and 18 unaffected relatives. Additional early onset (defined as age <60) MM cases (n=400), sporadic MM cases (n=879) and controls (n=2389) were also included in the joint calling to be used for follow-up of linkage regions. We included independent variants defined as linkage disequilibrium (LD) r2 <0.05 using both PLINK 1.07's LD based variant pruner and also MERLIN's pairwise r2 cluster marker-marker modeling to ensure variant independence. After quality control and LD filtering: 12,946 variants remained. We conducted multipoint linkage analysis using MERLIN (Multipoint Engine for Rapid Likelihood Inference using the Lander-Green approach) and considered both non-parametric and parametric (dominant and recessive) models to test for co-segregation of chromosomal regions with MM / MGUS. A logarithm of the odds (LOD) score greater than 3.3 was significant evidence for linkage. Within the same families, we interrogated any suggestive regions by performing gene-level association tests using the PEDGENE R package to calculate burden and kernel statistics, accounting for family relationships. Follow-up of these genes in the early onset and sporadic MM cases and controls and interrogation of single variants driving the associations of these genes is ongoing. Results Among the 79 families, 28 consisted of two or more MM, 41 had two or more MM and MGUS cases and 10 had two or more MGUS. Analyses of the 79 MM / MGUS families identified chromosome 6 at 123420001-149070000 BP region, with evidence for linkage by the non-parametric model (LOD score=3.3) and supportive evidence for linkage by the dominant parametric model (LOD=2.5) (Figure). The chromosome 6 region, which is outside the HLA-region, contains a total of 72 genes. Using gene-level association tests, we identified four genes within the region (MOXD1, TRDN, ADAT2, LTV1) that were associated within MM / MGUS in the family cases (p<0.05). Discussion We found evidence for a locus on chromosome 6 linked to MM / MGUS. Four genes in this region may be associated with MM / MGUS in these families. Follow-up of these genes/variants in high-risk individuals (early-onset / age <60), sporadic cases and controls will help elucidate genetic mechanisms contributing to familial MM / MGUS. In addition, we demonstrate the benefit of applying a linkage analysis framework to familial WES data for discovery of genomic regions influencing MM / MGUS. Disclosures Dumontet: Roche: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria. Kumar:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: 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; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: 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; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: The phase 3 double-blind, CALGB/Alliance 100104 study assessed the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide (LEN) or placebo maintenance therapy until relapse in post-autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Interim analyses demonstrated superiority for LEN versus placebo for time to progression (TTP), thus meeting the primary TTP endpoint of the trial. The study was unblinded in December 2009 and, based on the TTP and overall survival (OS) benefit observed with LEN, patients in the placebo arm (who had not yet progressed) at the time of unblinding were given the option of crossing over to receive LEN. Data have been reported for a follow-up of 91 months based on the planned intention to treat (ITT) analysis, yielding a TTP hazard ratio (HR) 0.57 and an OS difference of HR 0.61 (Holstein SA, et al. Lancet Haematol. 2017;4:e431-42). Crossover to active treatment enabled patients to benefit from LEN maintenance and collection of additional efficacy and safety data; however, crossover can confound the estimates of OS for longer follow-up. We report the results of an analysis adjusted for crossover, thus aiming to provide a more accurate estimate of the survival benefit achieved with LEN maintenance therapy. Methods: Results are reported for an analysis based on an updated data cutoff, post-October 2016. The rank-preserving structural failure time model (RPSFTM) was considered the most appropriate method to adjust for crossover (Robins JM, Tsiatis AA. Commun Stat Theory Methods. 1991;20:2609-31). This method requires that the assumption that the treatment effect is the same for patients who receive LEN at randomization as those who receive LEN as crossover treatment is not violated; a landmark analysis was performed to explore this. The iterative parameter estimation (IPE; Branson M, Whitehead J. Stat Med. 2002;21:2449-63) algorithm was used as validation. Both the RPSFTM and IPE analyses assume a residual LEN effect after discontinuation (base case). Results: A total of 76 NDMM patients who had not progressed, as determined by central adjudication, crossed over from placebo to LEN and were included in the analysis. The landmark analysis of OS from the date of unblinding indicated that the treatment effect for the crossover versus the non-crossover placebo group was HR 0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29-1.15) (Figure). This also provided a measure of the benefit of LEN maintenance in patients who started maintenance therapy after the trial-specified 90-100 day window post-ASCT (median 11.5 months post-randomization; range 3.2-51.0 months). Adjustment for crossover using the RPSFTM or IPE resulted in an increase in the relative treatment effect of LEN maintenance (vs placebo) on OS from 30.8 months for the ITT analysis (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.47-0.81) to 40.1 months (HR 0.52; 95% CI 0.36-0.73) for the RPSFTM analysis and 38.8 months (HR 0.52; 95% CI 0.37-0.74) for the IPE analysis (Table). Results were consistent across the two methods. Discussion: This analysis was performed on an updated version of the data set reported in the Holstein article. Once we adjusted for crossover, depending on the methodology used, there was an additional gain of ~40 months of OS. Previously, a pre-planned, pooled meta-analysis of 3 studies that included CALGB/Alliance (McCarthy PL, et al J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:3279-89) indicated that the OS gain was 2.5 years; however, our analysis from the CALGB study alone shows that LEN maintenance may provide a survival benefit of > 3 years. In diseases where prolonged follow-up is required to demonstrate survival benefits, allowing patients to crossover to active treatment may be important to facilitate this. However, the results should be analyzed appropriately to enable assessment of the value of the therapy. As this analysis indicates, the value of active treatment may be underestimated if adjustment for crossover is not performed. In conclusion, the data reported here provide further insight into the survival benefits of LEN maintenance therapy post-ASCT and support guideline recommendations to offer LEN maintenance therapy to all patients post-ASCT. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U10CA180820; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00114101. Disclosures McCarthy: Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Richardson:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cooper:Celgene: Consultancy; BresMed Health Solutions Ltd: Employment. Saunders:Celgene: Consultancy; BresMed Health Solutions Ltd: Employment. Dhanasiri:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Anderson:Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Millennium Takeda: Consultancy; C4 Therapeutics: Equity Ownership, Other: Scientific founder; Celgene: Consultancy; OncoPep: Equity Ownership, Other: Scientific founder; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stadtmauer:Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Holstein:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Abstract 3165 Background: Accrual to large oncology group studies in the United States is often slower than planned, especially in less common malignancies such as Multiple Myeloma (MM). To improve the treatment of patients with MM, it is essential that we address the barriers to accrual (BtA) to national clinical trials. The NCI Myeloma Steering Committee (MYSC) formed the Accrual Working Group (AWG), charged to analyze this problem. Methods: The members of the MYSC have developed a list of 10 potential BtA to NCI MM-CT under the leadership of the AWG at meetings conducted in person and by monthly telephone conference. This list was distributed via Survey Monkey among investigators and research staff of the SWOG, ECOG/ACRIN and Alliance research bases for the purpose of ranking the perceived importance of the 10 selected BtA. Responses based on a 0–5 Likert Scale were analyzed as continuous and categorical. For the latter, responses were grouped: Impedes Accrual – No (0,1), Yes (2–5); Significantly Impedes Accrual – No (0–3), Yes (4,5). Results: 246 survey responses were received. 50 participants who indicated that they had never attempted to or actually never enrolled a patient into a MM-CT were excluded. Of 196 responders, 61% had enrolled at least 5 patients, 43% practiced in academic centers (A) and 57% in community centers (C). 26% identified themselves as research staff, 74% as primarily physician investigators including Principal Investigators (12%). 78% have current access to NCI MM-CT. 46% identified their research base affiliation with SWOG, 20% with ECOG/ACRIN, 17% with Alliance, 17% as CTSU, NRG and other. The majority of survey responders confirmed agreement in the perception that all 10 identified BtA impede accrual, ranging from 60–84% depending on the specific barrier identified, while significant impediment to accrual ascribed to these BtA ranged from 22–47%. The perceived barriers most often cited as impeding accrual were (1) spectrum of available treatment options, (2) level of reimbursement for clinical trial related expenses and (3) patient‘s need for prompt treatment intervention (84%, 80%, 76% respectively). The first two barriers along with the requirement that patients receive their treatment exclusively at the NCI designated treatment site were rated most often as significantly impeding accrual (37%, 47%, 34% respectively). The first two were also identified most often as perceived BtA independent of practice setting (A, C), type of research engagement (physician investigator, research staff) and level of experience with MM-CT. Interestingly, the perception that patients must receive their treatment at the NCI designated treatment site and competing industry sponsored clinical trials were substantially more often cited as impeding accrual in academic centers compared to community centers and by physician investigators compared to research staff. The complexity of required diagnostic work up and the complexity of the treatment protocol and follow up testing were substantially more often cited as BtA in the community setting and by research staff compared to their peers in the academic setting and by physician investigators. The NCI MYSC AWG has proposed specific solutions to potentially lower perceived BtA. These include guidelines to allow protocol specific administration of commercially available agents by the patient‘s local oncologist, a simplified diagnostic work up and treatment plan and eligibility inclusion of patients who have received up to one cycle of specified urgent therapy prior to enrollment in MM-CT. Conclusions: We have queried experienced clinical investigators and research staff on 10 potential MM-CT specific BtA and found substantial consensus among responding participants in this survey. There are apparent differences in perceived BtA between the respondents from academic and community centers as well as between research staff and physician investigators. These data suggest that a structured approach to identification of BtA to clinical trials is feasible and creates opportunities to overcome them. This may have application to clinical trials across other diseases and may also lead to improvements in accrual. Disclosures: Barlogie: Celgene, IMF, MMRF, Millennium, Genzyme: Consultancy; Celgene, IMF, Millennium: Honoraria; Celgene, Novartis, NCI, Millennium, Onyx, Icon: Research Funding; GEP: Patents & Royalties.