Citations

Abstract Background: GLUT4 inhibition is an attractive therapeutic option in multiple myeloma (MM) given the dependence of MM cells on glucose transport. Furthermore, combining a GLUT4 inhibitor with an oxidative phosphorylation inhibitor in MM cells to counter the possibility of therapeutic resistance to GLUT4 inhibition has demonstrated synergistic promise (Dalva-Aydemir et al, Clin Can Res 2015). Using a GLUT4 inhibitor such as the HIV protease inhibitor nelfinavir is an attractive choice since it not only inhibits the transport function of GLUT4, but it also lowers the cytotoxicity resistance of MM cells against proteasome inhibitors such as bortezomib (Driessen et al, Blood 2018). Thus, in summary the FDA-approved oral HIV-PI nelfinavir, long used for the treatment of HIV disease, can bind to glucose transporters (GLUT4) on MM cells and reversibly inhibit glucose uptake, thus disrupting the Warburg effect. Nelfinavir can also enhance the activity of PIs such as bortezomib overcome its resistance in MM cells. Metformin, an oral FDA-approved drug for the treatment of Type II Diabetes has the ability to disrupt the electron transport chain of defective mitochondria within MM cells, thus blocking the ability of such mitochondria to generate energy and anabolic substrates as compensatory mechanisms required for proliferation in the setting of GLUT4 inhibition. Thus, this study will look at the safety and tolerability of repurposing the existing FDA-approved drugs for Type II diabetes and HIV in combination with bortezomib for the treatment of relapsed and/or refractory myeloma. Methods: This study is a phase 1 clinical trial of metformin and nelfinavir in combination with bortezomib for patients with relapsed and/or refractory myeloma. Part A of this trial is a 3+3 dose escalation design with 3 dose levels planned. Part B is a dose expansion cohort at the Maximal Tolerated Dose (MTD) determined in Part A. Up to a maximum of 36 patients will be enrolled and treated for a maximum of six 21-day cycles. Bortezomib is administered in its usual weekly subcutaneous dosing schedule of days 1, 8 and 15 of a 21-day cycle at a dose level of 1.3 mg/m2. Metformin will be administered for 14 days of a 21-day cycle and started at a dose level of 500 mg twice daily and will be investigated to a maximum dose of 1000 mg twice daily. Nelfinavir will also be administered for 14 days of a 21-day cycle and started at a dose level of 1250 mg twice daily and will be investigated to a maximum dose of 2500 mg twice daily. Key inclusion criteria include having relapsed/refractory myeloma with at least 2 prior lines of therapy and prior exposure to PIs, immunomodulators and Anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, adequate hematologic reserve, kidney function and liver function. This trial especially allows patients with non-secretory disease yet measurable by bone marrow assessments or cross-sectional imaging of plasmacytomas to be enrolled which constitutes an unmet need in the real-world MM population. Finally, this allows patients to be treated with a dexamethasone-free regimen. The primary objective of this trial is to determine the MTD of metformin and nelfinavir in combination with bortezomib. The secondary objective is to evaluate the safety and tolerability as well as the overall response rate (ORR) associated with this combination. Potential predictive biomarkers as well as resistance mechanisms using genomic RNA, immunohistochemistry and metabolomics-based assessment platforms will be evaluated in this study. Recruitment is ongoing with no safety concerns. This trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03829020. This investigator-initiated trial was funded by the generous gift of the Helen Diller Family Foundation. Disclosures Kumar: Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Ailawadhi: Karyopharm: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene, Ltd.: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Prognostic testing, including immunoglobulin heavy-chain variable region gene (IgHV) mutation status, cytogenetic abnormalities by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and immunophenotyping has been recommended in all newly diagnosed patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) prior to treatment initiation, and even in previously treated patients in some settings. Recent data have shown that disease with high-risk genetic features is better managed with novel agents than traditional chemoimmunotherapy. As such, the need for testing has become more relevant for disease management. However, there is limited recent data on real-world patterns of testing for risk factor assessment and in-turn, patterns of evidence-based treatment selection. This study aimed to examine: (1) the frequency and results of testing, (2) timing of testing by line of therapy, and (3) factors associated with the receipt of testing. Methods: De-identified data from the Flatiron Health EHR-derived database was used to identify patients who were ≥18 years old with newly-diagnosed CLL/SLL, who had ≥6-month continuous enrollment, and no prior treatment from January 2014 to May 2021. Testing evaluated included IgHV mutation status, FISH cytogenetic (11q deletion [del(11q)], 13q deletion [del(13q)], 17p deletion [del(17p)], Trisomy 12 [+12]) and other biomarkers (including CD38 and ZAP-70) by immunophenotyping. Descriptive analyses were conducted to examine the frequency and results in the overall population, and compared by patient characteristics and across sociodemographic groups. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to examine factors associated with the likelihood of receiving testing. Statistical significance was determined as a p-value of <0.05. Results: A total of 3,037 CLL patients were included (median age=73, 62.3% male, 74.6% white). The majority of patients (92%) received treatment in community practices, with 54.1% commercially-insured. We observed over half of CLL patients did not receive risk factor testing (Figure 1): IgHV mutation analyses (76.2%, n=2,315), FISH (61.5%, n=1,868) and immunophenotyping (72.1%, n=2,190). Of those who had testing, the majority (99%) had it done once prior to starting first-line therapy. Significant differences in the receipt of testing were observed between different age, gender, race/ethnicity, and regional subgroups (Table 1). Among patients who received testing, the presence of high-risk biomarkers was as follows: unmutated IgHV (56.1%), del(17p) present (14.4%), del(11q) present (16.9%), and CD38 present (30.8%). Compared to patients <65 years, testing results in elderly patients ≥65 years showed a lower presence of unmutated IgHV (53.8%) and del(11q) (15.7%) while higher del(17p) (14.7%) and +12 (28.1%). No significant disparity was observed in white vs. non-white patients except for a lower incidence of mutated IgHV and del(13q) presence. Compared to tested men, tested women had a lower presence of unmutated IgHV (53.9%), del(11q) (11.4%) and CD38+ (25.8%) while higher del(17p) (18.2%). We then investigated the impact of risk testing on therapy selection, and noted that patients with del(17p) had a higher likelihood than those who tested negative (73.6% vs. 48.4%) of being treated with novel agents (ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, or venetoclax). In contrast, 26.4% of those who tested del(17p) present and 39.8% among those who did not get tested received chemotherapy. Multivariable regression showed that patients who were older (≥65 years), female or those living in the west of U.S. were significantly less likely to receive testing. Conclusions: The NCCN guidelines recommend novel agents for patients with high-risk CLL/SLL. Thus, all patients are advised to complete risk-factor testing for both prognostication and selection of optimal, evidence-based therapy. Our real-world data highlights not only a significant gap in testing, but that this suboptimal testing is more common in vulnerable populations. We observed that despite identification of del(17), a quarter of CLL patients failed to receive novel agents in the frontline setting. Our analysis identified an unmet need for further education and refinement of clinical practice. This is necessary to achieve the best clinical outcome in CLL patients through robust risk-assessment testing and optimal therapeutic triaging. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Chanan-Khan: BieGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Consultancy; Ascentage, Starton, Cellectar, NonoDev, Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties: Tabi; Ascentage: Research Funding; Cellectar: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals, NonoDev, Starton: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; BeiGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Honoraria. Yang: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Liu: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Zimmerman: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Tang: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Ailawadhi: Ascentage: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Xencor: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy.

Background: Concern exists that the clinical trial populations differ from respective cancer populations in terms of their age distribution affecting the generalizability of the results, especially in underrepresented minorities. We hypothesized that the clinical trials that do not report race are likely to suffer from a higher degree of age disparity. Methods: Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approvals from July 2007 to June 2019 were reviewed to identify oncology approvals, and trials with age details were selected. The outcomes studied were the weighted mean difference in age between the clinical trial population and real-world population for various cancers, the prevalence of race reporting and association of age and race reporting with each other. Results: Of the 261 trials, race was reported in 223 (85.4%) of the trials, while 38 trials (14.6%) had no mention of race. Race reporting improved minimally over time: 29 (85.3%) in 2007–2010 vs. 49 (80.3%) in 2011–2014 vs. 145 (85.4%) during the period 2015–2019 (p-value = 0.41). Age discrepancy between the clinical trial population and the real-world population was higher for studies that did not report race (mean difference −8.8 years (95% CI −12.6 to −5.0 years)) vs. studies that did report it (mean difference −5.1 years, (95% CI −6.4 to −3.7 years), p-value = 0.04). Conclusion: The study demonstrates that a significant number of clinical trials leading to cancer drug approvals suffer from racial and age disparity when compared to real-world populations, and that the two factors may be interrelated. We recommend continued efforts to recruit diverse populations.

Background: It is standard of care and an accreditation requirement to screen for and address distress and psychosocial needs in patients with cancer. This study assessed the availability of mental health (MH) and chemical dependency (CD) services at US cancer centers. Methods: The 2017–2018 American Hospital Association (AHA) survey, Area Health Resource File, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital Compare databases were used to assess availability of services and associations with hospital-level and health services area (HSA)–level characteristics. Results: Of 1,144 cancer centers surveyed, 85.4% offered MH services and 45.5% offered CD services; only 44.1% provided both. Factors associated with increased adjusted odds of offering MH services were teaching status (odds ratio [OR], 1.76; 95% CI, 1.18–2.62), being a member of a hospital system (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.31–3.07), and having more beds (OR, 1.04 per 10-bed increase; 95% CI, 1.02–1.05). Higher population estimate (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97–0.99), higher percentage uninsured (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86–0.95), and higher Mental Health Professional Shortage Area level in the HSA (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98–1.00) were associated with decreased odds of offering MH services. Government-run (OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.30–6.22) and nonprofit centers (OR, 3.48; 95% CI, 1.78–6.79) showed increased odds of offering CD services compared with for-profit centers. Those that were members of hospital systems (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.14–2.29) and had more beds (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01–1.03) also showed increased odds of offering these services. A higher percentage of uninsured patients in the HSA (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88–0.97) was associated with decreased odds of offering CD services. Conclusions: Patients’ ability to pay, membership in a hospital system, and organization size may be drivers of decisions to co-locate services within cancer centers. Larger organizations may be better able to financially support offering these services despite poor reimbursement rates. Innovations in specialty payment models highlight opportunities to drive transformation in delivering MH and CD services for high-need patients with cancer.

Waldenström Macroglobulinemia (WM)/lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma (LPL) is often differentiated from myeloma based on the presence of lytic bone lesions (LBL). However, WM/LPL can present with LBL and management is poorly understood. We describe a case of an 81-year-old woman with LPL who presented with LBL and was successfully treated with chemoimmunotherapy.

PURPOSE: The benefit of routine pre-emptive screening for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections in patients with cancer before cancer-directed therapies is unclear. Herein, we characterize the outcomes of a cohort of patients with cancer who were diagnosed with COVID-19 by routine screening (RS) in comparison with those diagnosed on the basis of clinical suspicion or exposure history (nonroutine screening [NRS]). METHODS: A multisite prospective observational study was conducted at three major and five satellite campuses of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center between March 18 and July 31, 2020. The primary outcome was COVID-19–related hospital admission. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit admissions and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Five thousand four hundred fifty-two patients underwent RS in the outpatient setting only, and 44 (0.81%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. RS detected 19 additional patients from the scheduled inpatient admissions for surgical or interventional procedures or inpatient chemotherapy. One hundred sixty-one patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 on the basis of NRS. COVID-19–related hospitalization rate (17.5% v 26.7%; P = .14), intensive care unit admission (1.6% v 5.6%; P = .19), and mortality (4.8% v 3.7%; P = .72) were not significantly different between the RS and NRS groups. In the multivariable analysis, age ≥ 60 years (odds ratio, 4.4; P = .023) and an absolute lymphocyte count ≤ 1.4 × 109/L (odds ratio, 9.2; P = .002) were independent predictors of COVID-19–related hospital admission. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 positivity rate was low on the basis of RS. Comparing the hospital admission and mortality outcomes with the NRS cohort, there were no significant differences. The value of routine pre-emptive screening of asymptomatic patients with cancer for COVID-19 remains low.

Introduction Carfilzomib dosing as a single agent or in combination with dexamethasone (Kd) has evolved from the initial 27 mg/m 2 twice-weekly (legacy dose), to more recently approved doses of 56 mg/m 2 twice-weekly and 70 mg/m 2 once-weekly (optimized doses). The objective of this study was to evaluate the overall survival (OS), and time to next treatment (TTNT) among multiple myeloma patients treated with Kd optimized vs legacy doses. Methods A retrospective analysis of patients receiving Kd between 01/01/2013–07/31/2017 was conducted using IQVIA’s oncology electronic medical records database. Kd dose was estimated based on body surface area. OS was measured from the Kd-initiation date until death. TTNT was defined as the time from Kd-initiation until the start of subsequent treatment. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox models were used to evaluate OS and TTNT. Results Of the 1,469 patients evaluated, 129 (8.8%) received optimized dose and 1,340 (91.2%) received legacy dose. Risk of mortality was 64% lower for patients receiving the optimized doses (HR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.178–0.745). Patients receiving the optimized doses had significantly longer TTNT compared to patients receiving the legacy dose (median TTNT: 17.5 months [95% CI: 14.8-NE] and 13.2 months, [95% CI: 12.4–14.4], respectively; p = 0.023), and 33% lower risk of progressing to the subsequent treatment (HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.48–0.93). Conclusions Patient outcomes could be improved if eligible MM patients are treated with the optimized, recently approved Kd doses (56 mg/m 2 twice-weekly and 70 mg/m 2 once-weekly).

7561 Background: Phospholipid ethers (PLE) provide a novel mechanism to specifically target tumor cells leveraging high lipid raft content in their cell membranes. PLE/phospholipid drug conjugates are specifically designed to have high affinity to lipid rafts which upon binding results in trans-membrane flipping with the ability to deliver an attached warhead directly to the cytosol. CLR 131 (I-131-CLR1404) is a novel PLE molecule armed with I-131 resulting in targeted tumor cell radiotherapy which is being examined in relapsed or refractory WM through an open-label, Phase 2 trial, CLOVER-1 (NCT02952508). Methods: The primary objective of this study is to determine the efficacy and safety of CLR 131 in select B-cell malignancies. Eligibility criteria for WM pts include receipt of at least 2 prior treatment regimens unless ineligible to receive standard agents and have measurable disease: either IgM or extramedullary disease. CLR 131 is administered in up to 4 IV infusions (15-20 min) over 3 months. Adverse events (AEs) are graded by NCI-CTCAE v4.03; responses are assessed by the VIth WM Criteria for Response Assessment [Owen 2013]. Results: 6 pts with WM were enrolled in the study with data current as of 8 Jan 2021. The median age was 69 (range 54-81) with 4 females and 2 males who had a median of 2 prior regimens (range 1-5) and received a mean total body dose of 92.76 mCi CLR 131. 3 of 6 patients were MYD88 wild type (WT) of which 2 were dual WT (MYD88 WT & CXCR4 WT). The overall response rate (ORR) was 100% and the major response rate (MRR) was 83%, including 1 pt with a CR, 4 PR, and 1 MR. For those pts who were dual WT, the MRR was 100% and 1 pt who was MYD88 WT (CXCR4 is unknown) had a complete response. The median time to initial response was 48 days. Median duration of response (DOR) and treatment free remission (TFR) have not been reached; ongoing mean DOR is 335 days and mean TFR is 384 days. 100% of MYD88 WT patients have exceeded 6.5 months of follow up with average TFR of 18.1 months. The primary treatment emergent AEs in pts with WM included fatigue and cytopenias, in line with prior experience with CLR 131 in other B-cell malignancies. The most commonly observed cytopenias included Grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia (100%), neutropenia (83%), anaemia (66%) and decreased white blood cell count (33%). Of note, no cases of bleeding or febrile neutropenia were observed. Conclusions: Initial results for CLR 131 show efficacy across multiple WM patient genotypes including dual WT patients with durable DOR and TFR after 2 to 4 infusions. CLR 131 represents a novel and promising approach to the treatment of MYD88 WT patients who have a historical median time to progression of 1.3 years. These encouraging data led to the pivotal global CLOVER-WaM trial (N=50) in WM patients who have failed or had a suboptimal response to a Bruton Tyrosine Kinase inhibitor. CLOVER-WaM is currently enrolling. Clinical trial information: NCT02952508.

7502 Background: The BCL-2i venetoclax is active in certain HMs but can increase the risk of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS), requiring a 5-week dose ramp-up for CLL patients. Cases of severe neutropenia with venetoclax treatment have also been reported. Lisaftoclax is a novel, potent, selective BCL-2i that is active against HMs and is under clinical development. Methods: This first-in-human global phase I dose study assessed the safety, PK, PD, efficacy, and MTD/RP2D of lisaftoclax in patients with R/R CLL and other HMs. Lisaftoclax was orally administered daily in a 28-day cycle. Patients with CLL or intermediate-high TLS risk were initiated on a daily ramp-up schedule until the assigned dose before the study cycles. Results: On January 7, 2021, 35 pts had been enrolled and treated with lisaftoclax at doses ranging from 20 to 1,200 mg, with a median (range) of 2 (1-13) prior lines of treatment, and had diagnoses of R/R CLL or SLL (n = 15), MM (n = 6), FL (n = 5), WM (n = 4), and either AML, MCL, DLBCL, MDS, or HCL (n = 1 each). No DLT has been observed, even though 1,200 mg was considered as the highest dose treated. The MTD has not been reached, and no laboratory or clinical TLS has been reported. Any grade TRAEs in > 10% of pts included neutropenia (22.9%) and anemia (17.1%; hematologic), and fatigue (28.6%), diarrhea (17.1%), and nausea (11.4%; nonhematologic). Grade >3 TRAEs were neutropenia (14.3%) and thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, lymphopenia, fatigue, and nausea (2.9% of pts each). In CLL/SLL pts, grade 3-4 TRAEs included neutropenia (13.3%) and thrombocytopenia (6.7%), which did not cause treatment-related discontinuation. In all, 12 of 35 pts (34.3%) had non-treatment-related SAEs, and only two pts experienced > 1 SAE. With a median (range) treatment of 7 (3-20) cycles, 12 of 14 evaluable R/R CLL/SLL pts achieved PR, for an ORR of 85.7% and a median (range) time to response of 3 (2-7) cycles. Absolute lymphocyte counts (ALCs) were reduced at lisaftoclax doses as low as 20 mg/day. The preliminary PK profile showed that exposures increased with lisaftoclax doses from 20 to 1,200 mg (average half-life: 4-5 hours). On BH3 profiling, lisaftoclax rapidly triggered changes in BCL-2 complex in CLL/SLL pt samples, which were consistent with rapid clinical reductions in ALCs. Conclusions: Lisaftoclax was well tolerated up to 1,200 mg/day. No TLS was observed, even with the daily ramp-up schedule. There were no significant new or unmanageable safety findings, and the ORR in R/R CLL/SLL pts was 85.7%. Grade 3-4 TRAEs were infrequent, even at dose levels of 800 mg and above. BCL-2i lisaftoclax offers a treatment alternative for patients with R/R CLL/SLL and other HMs, with a daily ramp-up schedule that may be more pt “user friendly” and a favorable preliminary safety profile. Internal study identifier APG2575-001. Clinical trial information: NCT03537482.