Citations

Abstract Background: Disseminated tumor cells (DTCs) in bone marrow detected after treatment may represent occult residual disease. We enumerated DTCs after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in patients (pts) diagnosed with high-risk early stage breast cancer and examined the relationship of these cells with response and survival. Methods: I-SPY SURMOUNT is a sub-study of the I-SPY 2 TRIAL (NCT01042379). Pts enrolled on I-SPY 2, who signed consent for this sub-study, had bone marrow aspirates (BMA) collected after NACT at the time of surgery. DTCs were isolated and enumerated from BMA using immunomagnetic enrichment/flow cytometry (IE/FC). DTCs were defined as EPCAM-positive and CD45-negative nucleated cells. Samples were considered positive using a predetermined threshold of >4 DTCs per mL (Magbanua et al, unpublished data). Pathologic response was assessed using the residual cancer burden (RCB) method at local sites, and pts underwent standard adjuvant therapy if indicated and follow up for recurrence events and death. Relationship of DTCs with clinicopathologic variables was examined using Chi-squared test. Group means were compared using t tests. The log-rank test was used to compare survival curves. Results: A total of 73 patients were enrolled, 51 of whom had successful DTC assessment. The median DTC per mL was 4 (interquartile range 1.2-11.6). 24/51 (47%) were DTC-positive. Clinical characteristics by DTC status are shown in the table. DTC-positive pts were significantly younger (p=0.02) and had larger pretreatment tumors (longest diameter by magnetic resonance imaging) compared to DTC-negative pts (p=0.032). DTCs were not associated with receptor subtype. Thirty pts (41%) achieved a pathologic complete response (pCR). DTCs were not associated with pCR (p= 0.166); however, DTC-positive patients were significantly more likely to have residual cancer (RCB-II/III) after NACT compared to DTC-negative patients (OR 3.3, p=0.037). Median follow up of this cohort was 2.8 years (range: 0.9-4.8). Interim survival analysis showed that DTCs were not significantly correlated with EFS (p=0.6) or DRFS (p=0.41). Conclusions: Detection of DTCs at surgery after NACT is significantly more common in young patients, those with larger tumors, and those with residual disease at surgery. While these associations suggest higher risk for later recurrence, larger studies and longer follow up are necessary to determine if DTCs add prognostic value over pathologic evaluation alone for pts receiving NACT. Citation Format: Mark Jesus M Magbanua, Laura van 't Veer, Amy Clark, A. Jo Chien, Judy Boughey, Heather Han, Anne Wallace, Heather Beckwith, Minetta Liu, Christina Yau, E. Paul Wileyto, Lamorna Brown Swigart, Jane Perlmutter, Lauren Bayne, Shannon Deluca, Stephanie Yee, Erica Carpenter, Laura Esserman, John Park, Lewis Chodosh, Angela DeMichele. Outcomes associated with disseminated tumor cells at surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high-risk early stage breast cancer: The I-SPY SURMOUNT study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS2-07.

Abstract Background: In the I-SPY 2 TRIAL, the addition of P to standard NAC resulted in more than doubling of the pathologic complete response (pCR) rates for both hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2- and triple-negative (TN) early breast cancer (EBC) patients (pts) compared to NAC only (Nanda et al, JAMA Oncol, 2020). At 3 years, distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS) rates in pts with pCR following NAC+P was >95%. We hypothesized that ctDNA can serve as a predictive biomarker of response and survival in pts treated with NAC. Methods: A personalized ctDNA test (Signatera) was performed on 511 serial plasma samples from 138 pts with high-risk HR+/HER2- (n=77) or TN (n=61) stage II/III EBC. Pts received P with paclitaxel (Tx) followed by AC (P arm, n=42) or standard NAC only (n=96), an exploratory subset of pts evaluated for P efficacy. Plasma was collected; pretreatment (T0), 3 weeks after treatment initiation (T1), between Tx+/-P and AC regimens (T2), and prior to surgery (T3). ctDNA was deemed positive with a minimum of 2 of the pt specific tumor mutation fragments detected in cfDNA. Association of ctDNA with response and survival was analyzed using logistic and Cox regressions with pCR and DRFS as endpoints. Median follow-up was 2.8 years. Results: Detection of ctDNA decreased over time (P arm: T0-81%, T1-50%, T2-19%, T3-3%) and NAC only: T0-82%, T1-65%, T2-26%, T3-10%). ctDNA data at T0 and T1 was available for 96% (132/138) of pts in P arm or NAC only (Table). Among ctDNA+ patients at baseline, clearance at T1 was significantly associated with pCR (OR=1.92, ctDNA+/-; OR=0.27, ctDNA+/+; LR p<0.001). This association remained significant after adjustment for HR status and treatment (LR p<0.001) and P arm or NAC only (P: LR p=0.03; NAC: LR p=0.01). ctDNA data at T0, T1, and T2 was available for 86% (118/138) pts. (Table). Among all ctDNA+ pts at baseline, dynamics through T2 was associated with pCR (OR=1.44, ctDNA+/-/-; OR=0.33, ctDNA+/+/-, OR=0.12, ctDNA+/+/+; LR p=0.0011). This association remained significant when adjusted for HR status and treatment (LR p<0.001). Analysis within individual treatments showed significant association for NAC (LR p=0.040) and a non-significant trend in NAC+P (LR p=0.063), likely due to smaller sample size. All pts who achieved pCR were ctDNA- at T3 (n=34). Among those who failed to achieve pCR (n=81), DRFS was significantly better in ctDNA- (n=72/81; 20 in P and 52 in NAC) versus ctDNA+ pts (n=9/81; 1 in P and 8 in NAC) (adjusted HR 0.13; 95% CI 0.05-0.37). Conclusions: These exploratory results align with our previous findings that early clearance of ctDNA during NAC treatment was significantly associated with increased likelihood of achieving pCR. Additionally, we show that ctDNA clearance can be an early surrogate marker for therapy response assessment. Residual ctDNA after neoadjuvant treatment was a significant predictor of metastatic recurrence and death. Personalized monitoring of ctDNA during the course of NAC is feasible and provides information that can be combined with imaging and pathology, and may help to optimize decision making for de-escalation or escalation of therapy. Larger studies are ongoing. ctDNA dynamics and pCRctDNA status at T0 and T1 (n=132)ctDNA status at T0, T1, and T2 (n=118)ctDNA-/-ctDNA+/-ctDNA+/+ctDNA-/-/-ctDNA+/-/-ctDNA+/+/-ctDNA+/+/+Total, n (%)24 (18)28 (21)80 (61)22 (19)24 (20)43 (36)27 (23)pCR, n (%)9 (38)15 (54)11 (14)9 (41)12 (50)8 (19)2 (7)No pCR, n (%)15 (63)13 (46)69 (86)13 (59)12 (50)35 (81)25 (93) Citation Format: Mark Jesus M Magbanua, Denise Wolf, Derrick Renner, Svetlana Shchegrova, Lamorna Brown Swigart, Christina Yau, Gillian Hirst, Hsin-Ta Wu, Ekaterina Kalashnikova, Antony Tin, Amy Delson, Douglas Yee, Angela DeMichele, Raheleh Salari, Angel Rodriguez, Bernhard Zimmermann, Himanshu Sethi, Alexey Aleshin, Paul Billings, Laura Esserman, Minetta Liu, Rita Nanda, Laura van ‘t Veer, I-SPY 2 Investigators. Personalized ctDNA as a predictive biomarker in high-risk early stage breast cancer (EBC) treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) with or without pembrolizumab (P) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD9-02.

Abstract Background: I-SPY 2 is a multicenter, phase 2 trial using response-adaptive randomization within molecular subtypes defined by receptor status and MammaPrint (MP) risk to evaluate novel agents as neoadjuvant therapy for women with high-risk stage II/III breast cancer. The primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR, ypT0/Tis ypN0). SGN-LIV1A is an investigational antibody drug conjugate consisting of an antibody to LIV1A, a zinc transporter highly prevalent in breast cancer, and a highly potent microtubule inhibitor, monomethyl auristatin E. Retrospective IHC analysis of LIV1A expression levels amongst tumor samples from 100 previous ISPY-2 patients showed 88% of breast tumor samples with moderate to high expression of LIV1A (Yau, C. et al SABCS 2018).Methods: Women with tumors ≥ 2.5cm were eligible for screening. Only HER2 negative (HER2-) patients were eligible for this treatment, hormone-receptor positive (HR+) patients had to have MP high molecular profile. Treatment included SGN-LIV1A 2.5 mg/kg (max dose 250 mg) every 3 weeks x 4, followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) every 2-3 weeks x 4. The control arm was weekly paclitaxel x 12 followed by AC every 2-3 weeks x 4. All patients undergo serial MR imaging where response at 3 & 12 weeks combined with accumulating pCR data are used to estimate, and continuously update, predicted pCR rate for the trial arm. Analysis set was modified intention to treat with patients who switched to non-protocol therapy counted as non-pCR and not as their pCR status at time of surgery. The goal is to identify/graduate regimens with ≥85% Bayesian predictive probability of success (i.e. demonstrating superiority to control) in a future 300-patient phase 3 neoadjuvant trial with a pCR endpoint within signatures defined by HR & HER2 status & MP result. This investigational arm was eligible for graduation in 3 of 10 pre-defined signatures: HER2-, HR+HER2- and HR-HER2-. Regimens may also leave the trial for futility (< 10% probability of success), maximum sample size accrual (10% < probability of success <85%), maximum time in trial (2 years) or for safety as recommended by the independent DSMB. Results: Sixty patients were randomized and evaluable to SGN-LIV1A. The study arm was stopped due to reaching the predetermined time limit for patient accrual of 2 yrs. Final estimated pCR rates are below. The estimated pCR rates were similar between the SGN-LIV1A and control arms for any tumor subtype. Preliminary safety events for SGN-LIV1A include increased rates of transaminitis and hyperglycemia and reduced rates of peripheral neuropathy compared to control. One patient was removed from the analysis as she was determined to have angiosarcoma of the breast. Notably, this patient had a dramatic early response and subsequent pCR to SGN-LIV1A treatment. Conclusion: The value of I-SPY 2 is to give insight about the performance of an investigational agent’s likelihood of achieving pCR. SGN-LIV1A delivered every 3 weeks was comparable to paclitaxel for the primary endpoint of pCR in I-SPY2 and may have a similar side effect profile, however, with less peripheral neuropathy. Clinical trials evaluating weekly dosing of SGN-LIV1A are ongoing. A trial of SGN-LIV1A in the treatment of angiosarcoma is under consideration at this time. Final Estimated pCR Rates and Predictive ProbabilitiesEstimated pCR rate(95% prob interval)SignatureSGN-LIV1AControlProbability SGNLIV1A Superior to ControlPredictive Probability of Success in Phase 3HER2-0.16 (0.08-0.24) N= 600.20 (0.16-0.25) N= 3270.180.02HR-/HER2-0.25 (0.12-0.37) N=360.28 (0.21-0.35) N=1460.310.06HR+/HER2-0.09 (0-0.18) N=240.14 (0.09-0.19) N=1810.150.03 Citation Format: Heather Beckwith, Richard Schwab, Christina Yau, Erica Stringer-Reasor, Shi Wei, A. Jo Chien, Kathy S Albain, Kevin Kalinsky, Anne Wallace, Anthony Elias, Douglas Yee, Amy S Clark, Judy C Boughey, Heather Han, Rita Nanda, Claudine Isaacs, Zahi Mitri, Julie E Lang, Alexandra Thomas, Tara Sanft, Angela DeMichele, Jane Perlmutter, Hope S Rugo, Nola M Hylton, W. Fraser Symmans, Michelle E Melisko, Laura J van't Veer, I-SPY 2 Consortium, Amy Wilson, Smita M Asare, Ashish Sanil, Donald A Berry, Laura J Esserman. Evaluation of SGN-LIV1a followed by AC in high-risk HER2 negative stage II/III breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD1-10.

In the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), the number of strokes did not differ significantly by treatment group. However, stroke subtypes have heterogeneous causes that could respond differently to intensive blood pressure control. SPRINT participants (N=9361) were randomized to target systolic blood pressures of <120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) compared with <140 mm Hg (standard treatment). We compared incident hemorrhage, cardiac embolism, large- and small-vessel infarctions across treatment arms. Participants randomized to the intensive arm had mean systolic blood pressures of 121.4 mm Hg in the intensive arm (N=4678) and 136.2 mm Hg in the standard arm (N=4683) at one year. Sixty-nine strokes occurred in the intensive arm and 78 in the standard arm when SPRINT was stopped. The breakdown of stroke subtypes across treatment arms included hemorrhagic (intensive treatment, n=6, standard treatment, n=7) and ischemic stroke subtypes (large artery atherosclerosis: intensive treatment n=11, standard treatment, n=13; cardiac embolism: intensive treatment n=11, standard treatment n=15; small artery occlusion: intensive treatment n=8, standard treatment n=8; other ischemic stroke: intensive treatment n=3, standard treatment n=1). Fewer strokes occurred among participants without prior cardiovascular disease in the intensive (n=43) than the standard arm (n=61), but the difference did not reach predefined statistical significance level of 0.05 ( P =0.09). The interaction between baseline cardiovascular risk factor status and treatment arm on stroke risk did not reach significance ( P =0.05). Similar numbers of stroke subtypes occurred in the intensive BP control and standard control arms of SPRINT.

Background: B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) is widely expressed on normal plasma cells and malignant plasma cells in multiple myeloma (MM). MEDI2228 is an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) that targets the extracellular domain of human BCMA with preferential binding to membrane-bound versus circulating soluble BCMA. The ADC is comprised of a fully human antibody to BCMA, site- specifically conjugated to a DNA cross-linking pyrrolobenzodiazepine (PBD) dimer via a protease-cleavable linker. After cell surface binding to BCMA, MEDI2228 is internalized and cleaved in the lysosomal compartment, releasing the active PBD, which cross-links DNA and leads to apoptotic cell death. We report the results from a phase 1, first-in-human, open-label, dose-escalation and expansion trial (NCT03489525) that evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and clinical activity of MEDI2228 in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory MM (R/R MM). Methods: Eligible pts were ≥18 years old with confirmed R/R MM as defined by International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria, had measurable disease, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1. Pts had to have progressed after treatment with three classes of standard-of-care anti-myeloma drugs, including proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Dose escalation was based on an accelerated titration design, with an mTPI-2 algorithm. During dose escalation, MEDI2228 was administered in sequentially ascending dose levels (0.0125, 0.025, 0.05, 0.1, and 0.2 mg/kg) intravenously every 3 weeks (Q3W). Due to dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), the dose was de-escalated from 0.2 mg/kg to an intermediate dose level of 0.14 mg/kg. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints included assessment of preliminary efficacy, PK, and immunogenicity. Results: As of May 15, 2020, 82 pts received MEDI2228 during dose escalation and expansion. All pts had received prior therapy with an IMiD, PI, and mAb: lenalidomide, 76 (94%); pomalidomide, 68 (84%); bortezomib, 77 (95%); carfilzomib, 64 (79%); and daratumumab, 71 (87%). Pts received between 2-11 lines of prior regimens. At 0.2 mg/kg, 2 pts experienced DLTs (grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia) without bleeding; no DLTs were reported for other dose levels. The maximum tolerated dose was 0.14 mg/kg Q3W. Treatment-related adverse events (TEAEs) occurring in ≥20% of pts in the 0.14 mg/kg cohort were photophobia (53.7%), thrombocytopenia (31.7%), rash (29.3%), increased gamma-glutamyltransferase (24.4%), dry eye (19.5%), and pleural effusion (19.5%). No reports of keratopathy or visual acuity loss were observed in the 0.14 mg/kg cohort. The TEAE profiles at lower-dose levels were similar but with lower incidences compared with the 0.14 mg/kg level. Efficacy was demonstrated at all dose levels (dose, objective response rate [ORR], [n]): 0.0125 mg/kg, 33.3% [1/3]; 0.025 mg/kg, 16.7% [1/6]; 0.05 mg/kg, 33.3% [3/9]; 0.10 mg/kg, 27.8% [5/18]; 0.14 mg/kg, 61.0% [25/41]; 0.2 mg/kg, 40.0%, [2/5]. In the 0.14 mg/kg cohort, ORR was 61.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 44.5%, 75.8%); there were 10 (24.4%) very good partial responses (VGPRs), 15 (36.6%) partial responses, and 3 (7.3%) minimal responses. Four of the VGPR pts were immunofixation negative. Most (90.2%) pts in the 0.14 mg/kg cohort had received prior daratumumab. Median duration of response (DOR) in the 0.14 mg/kg cohort was not reached. MEDI2228 exhibited linear PK at doses of ≥0.05 mg/kg Q3W that was minimally impacted by circulating levels of soluble BCMA at baseline. There was no difference in BCMA expression by IHC in the bone marrow of responders compared with nonresponders. Thirty-six pts in the 0.14 mg/kg cohort discontinued treatment due to adverse events (n=24), progressive disease (n=8), patient decision (n=2), investigator decision (n=1), or death (n=1). Conclusion: MEDI2228 is a BCMA-targeted ADC that demonstrated clinical efficacy at all dose levels explored. MEDI2228 0.14 mg/kg Q3W had a manageable safety profile and an ORR of 61% in a heavily pretreated population with myeloma that is R/R post PI, IMiD, and mAb therapies. Disclosures Kumar: Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; MedImmune: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Sanofi: Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy. Bhutani:Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy; Takeda: Other: Clinical trial funding to institute, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Other: Clinical trial funding to institute, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; MedImmune: Other: Clinical Trial Funding to Institute; Prothena: Other: Clinical Trial Funding to Institute; Janssen: Other: Clinical Trial Funding to Institute. Spencer:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; Servier: Consultancy, Other: Grant/Research Support; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support, Speakers Bureau; Haemalogix: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other, Speakers Bureau; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; TheraMyc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Antegene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmamar: Other. Ailawadhi:Cellectar: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Phosplatin: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Kalff:Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; CSL: Honoraria. Pore:AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Gibson:AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Other: Paid as a clinical scientist contractor. Wang:AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Cheng:Astrazeneca: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company. Williams:AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kinneer:AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Personal fees; BCMA Monoclonal Antibody-Drug Conjugate: Patents & Royalties: Pending. Zonder:Intellia: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Alnylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Oncopeptide: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees; Prothena: Consultancy; Caelum: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding. 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. Yee:Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Oncopeptide: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding. Dimopoulos:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Speakers Bureau.

Introduction: Hypomethylating agents (HMAs) or DNA methyltransferase inhibitors (DNMTi) such as decitabine or azacitidine are established standard of care for the treatment of MDS and CMML. The oral bioavailability of these agents has been limited due to rapid degradation by cytidine deaminase (CDA) in the gut and liver, hence requiring intravenous infusion or subcutaneous injections daily for 5-7 days every month (m). This parenteral administration requirement adds significant burden to older cancer patients due to daily time commitment and travel to treatment centers. It also increases exposure to and infection risk with SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Oral decitabine 35 mg/cedazuridine 100 mg (ASTX727) is an oral fixed dose combination drug of decitabine and the CDA inhibitor cedazuridine that have shown 99% (90% CI 93% to 106%) equivalent exposure to standard dose IV decitabine 20 mg/m2 in a randomized cross-over study (Garcia-Manero et al, ASH 2019). Here, we present the clinical efficacy and safety results of oral decitabine/cedazuridine from 133 patient study in MDS and CMML (ASTX727-02 ASCERTAIN study). Methods: We used a randomized cross over design where patients were randomized in the first 2 cycles 1:1 to either Sequence A: decitabine 35 mg/ cedazuridine 100 mg in Cycle 1 followed by IV decitabine at 20 mg/m2 in Cycle 2, or Sequence B: IV decitabine in Cycle 1 followed by oral decitabine/cedazuridine in Cycle 2 to do an intra-patient comparison of decitabine PK (primary PK endpoint: decitabine AUC equivalence over 5 days of dosing). Cycles were repeated every 28 days. All patients received oral decitabine/cedazuridine in all subsequent cycles from Cycle 3 onwards until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients were eligible as per the FDA-approved label of IV decitabine (MDS patients by FAB classification including CMML, or MDS IPSS Intermediate-1, 2 or high-risk patients). Clinical endpoints were best response as assessed by an independent expert panel according to International Working Group (IWG) 2006 response criteria, transfusion independence for at least 8 or 16 consecutive weeks, overall survival, and safety. Adverse events (AEs) were graded by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v 4.03. Results: 138 subjects were randomized, of whom 133 were treated on study. The median age was 71.0 years (range 44-88), 65% were male, 88% MDS and 12% CMML, 43% were either red blood cells (RBCs) or platelets transfusion-dependent at baseline, 25% had poor-risk cytogenetics, and 42% had baseline bone marrow blasts &gt;5%. At the data cutoff for the response analysis, the median duration of follow up was 12.6 m (range 9.3 to 20.5 m) with median number of treatment cycles of 8 (range 1 to 18). Of the 133 treated patients the best response was complete response (CR) in 28 patients (21%; 95% CI 15-29%), marrow (m)CR with hematological improvement (HI) in 20 patients (15%), mCR without HI in 23 patients (17.3%), and HI in 10 patients (7.5%) for an overall objective response (CR+mCR+HI) in 81 patients (61%; 95% CI 52-69%). Median duration of CR was 7.5 m (range 1.6 to 17.5 m), and median time to CR was 4.3 m (range 2.1 to 15.2 m). Of the 133 treated patients 27 (20%) went on to receive allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant. Of the 57 patients who were either RBCs or platelets transfusion-dependent at baseline, 30 (53%) became transfusion independent for both RBCs and platelets for at least 8 consecutive weeks, and 19 (33%) were both RBCs and platelets transfusion independent for at least 16 consecutive weeks. Median survival has not been reached. Most common Treatment-Emergent AEs of Grade ≥3 regardless of causality were neutropenia in 51.5%, thrombocytopenia in 50%, anemia in 40%, febrile neutropenia in 26%, leukopenia in 21%, pneumonia in 12%, and sepsis in 7% of patients treated with oral decitabine/cedazuridine (excluding the IV decitabine cycle). Summary/Conclusions: Efficacy and safety from oral decitabine 35 mg/ cedazuridine 100 mg daily for 5 days every 28 days are consistent with clinical data from standard IV decitabine 20 mg/m2 daily for 5 days. Oral decitabine/cedazuridine is the only oral HMA with systemic exposure equivalent to its injectable drug. Further investigation of oral decitabine/cedazuridine in all-oral combination studies is warranted and underway. Disclosures Savona: BMS: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Ryvu: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Patents & Royalties; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Griffiths:Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech Inc: Research Funding; Boston Biomedical: Honoraria; AbbVie Inc: Honoraria; Persimmune: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex Pharmceuticals: Research Funding. Zeidan:CCITLA: Other; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeyondSpring: Consultancy, Honoraria; Taiho: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cardinal Health: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Other; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Trovagene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ionis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acceleron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene / BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; MedImmune/Astrazeneca: Research Funding; Cardiff Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria. Patel:DAVA Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; France Foundation: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy. Keating:Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Taiho: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dao:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment. Fazal:Jansen: Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharma: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Karyopham: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Glaxosmith Kline: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Stemline: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Odenike:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex Pharmaceuticals, NS Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Oncology, Oncotherapy, Agios, CTI/Baxalta, Aprea: Other: Institutional research funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Incyte: Other: Institutional research funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Impact Biomedicines: 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, Research Funding. Kantarjian:Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; BioAscend: Honoraria; Delta Fly: Honoraria; Ascentage: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Actinium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Immunogen: Research Funding; Aptitute Health: Honoraria; BMS: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Research Funding; Oxford Biomedical: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive biotechnologies: Honoraria. DeZern:MEI: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astex: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy. Roboz:Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy; Amphivena: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Actinium: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Trovagene: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Jasper Therapeutics: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy. Busque:Pfizer: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Wells:Alexion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Leber:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Otsuka Pharmaceutical: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda/Palladin: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Treadwell: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Lundbeck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hao:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment. Keer:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment. Garcia-Manero:Acceleron Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amphivena Therapeutics: Research Funding; Helsinn Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

Background Lymphedema is an adverse effect of breast cancer treatment that causes swelling and pain in the arm and hand. We tested 2 lymphedema prevention interventions and their impact on health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) in a group‐randomized trial at 38 cooperative group sites within the United States. Methods Patients were recruited before breast surgery. Sites were randomly assigned to education‐only (EO) lymphedema prevention or education plus exercise and physical therapy (LEAP). Lymphedema was defined as a ≥10% difference in arm volume at any time from baseline to 18 months postsurgery. HRQOL was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Breast plus 4 lymphedema items (FACT‐B+4). Longitudinal mixed model regression analysis, adjusting for key demographic and clinical variables, examined participants' HRQOL by intervention group and lymphedema status. Results A total of 547 patients (56% LEAP) were enrolled and completed HRQOL assessments. The results revealed no differences between the interventions in preventing lymphedema ( P = .37) or HRQOL (FACT‐B+4 total score; P = .8777). At 18 months, the presence of lymphedema was associated with HRQOL at borderline significance ( P = .0825). However, African American patients reported greater lymphedema symptoms ( P = .0002) and better emotional functioning ( P = .0335) than patients of other races or ethnicities. Lower HRQOL during the intervention was associated with younger age ( P ≤ .0001), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status >0 ( P = .0002), ≥1 positive lymph nodes ( P = .0009), having no education beyond high school ( P < .0001), having undergone chemotherapy ( P = .0242), and having had only axillary node dissection or sentinel node biopsy versus both ( P = .0007). Conclusion The tested interventions did not differ in preventing lymphedema or in HRQOL outcomes. African American women reported greater HRQOL impacts due to lymphedema symptoms than women of other races or ethnicities.

Background Lymphedema affects many women who are treated for breast cancer. We examined the effectiveness of an education‐only (EO) versus education plus sleeve compression/exercise intervention (lymphedema education and prevention [LEAP]) on lymphedema incidence and range of motion (ROM) in a group‐randomized trial across 38 cooperative group sites. Methods The treating institution was randomly assigned to either EO or LEAP by a study statistician. All patients at a treating institution participated in the same intervention (EO or LEAP) to minimize contamination bias. Participants completed surveys, arm volume measurements, and self‐reported ROM assessments before surgery and at 12 and 18 months after surgery. Lymphedema was defined as a ≥10% difference in limb volume at any time post‐surgery up to 18 months after surgery or diagnosis by a health provider. Cochran‐Mantel‐Haenszel tests were used to compare lymphedema‐free rates between groups, stratified by lymph node surgery type. Self‐reported ROM differences were compared between groups. Results A total of 554 participants (56% LEAP) were included in the analyses. At 18 months, lymphedema‐free rates were 58% (EO) versus 55% (LEAP) ( P = .37). ROM for both arms was greater in LEAP versus EO at 12 months; by 18 months, most women reported full ROM, regardless of group. In LEAP, only one‐third wore a sleeve ≥75% of the time; 50% performed lymphedema exercises at least weekly. Conclusion Lymphedema incidence did not differ by intervention group at 18 months. Poor adherence in the LEAP group may have contributed. However, physical therapy may speed recovery of ROM. Further research is needed to effectively reduce the incidence and severity of lymphedema in patients who have breast cancer.