Citations

Abstract Background: NET is offered to postmenopausal patients (pts) with clinical stage 2/3 ER+/HER2- BC to promote breast-conserving surgery. Also limited surgical accessibility during the COVID19 pandemic has increased NET utility. Inability to identify ET-resistant disease at diagnosis risks disease progression (PD) and delays more effective treatments. Dowsett et al. recently demonstrated that baseline levels of ER, progesterone receptor (PR), Ki67 (>15% vs ≤15%), and Ki67 (>10% vs ≤10%) 2-4 weeks (wks) after starting NET may improve appropriate patient (pt) selection for NET (PMC7280290). The ER, PR and Ki67-based prediction model divides pts with primary ER+/HER2- BC into 3 groups for appropriateness for NET: (Group 1) NET is likely to be inappropriate (Allred ER <6 or ER 6 and PgR <6), (Group 2) NET may be appropriate and a biopsy for on-treatment Ki67 analysis may be considered after 2-4 wks of NET (2A: ER 7 or 8 and PgR <6 and 2B: ER 6 or 7 and PgR ≥6) given that on-treatment Ki67 >10% has been associated with worse outcome (PMC5455353), or (Group 3) NET is appropriate (ER 8 and PgR ≥6). The ALTERNATE trial (NCT01953588) randomized postmenopausal women with clinical stage II or III, ER+ (Allred score 6-8)/HER2- BC to receive anastrozole (ANA), fulvestrant (FUL), or ANA + FUL for 6 months, unless Ki67 was >10% on wk 4 or 12 biopsy, in which case pts were triaged to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) or surgery. As previously reported, the ET-sensitive disease (mPEPI 0 plus pCR) rates were similar across the treatment arms and overall 22% (286 of 1,299) pts had Ki67 >10% at wk 4 or 12. The ALTERNATE trial therefore provides a large independent data set to evaluate the NET appropriateness model. Results: Among 1,299 eligible pts randomized to receive 6 months of NET, 214 were excluded due to absent HR Allred score (n=41) or absence of pre-treatment and wk 4 Ki67 determinations (n=173). The proportions of the remaining 1,085 pts in Group 1, 2 and 3 were 1% (n=10), 43% (n= 468), and 56% (n=607), respectively. On-study Ki67 >10% prompting conversion from NET to NCT/Surgery occurred in: Group 1 90% (9 of 10), Group 2 30% (141 of 468), and Group 3 17% (104 of 607) (Table 1). Among the 1,075 pts in Groups 2 and 3, 260 (24%) pts had Ki67 ≤15% at baseline (BL), among whom only 14 (5.4%) had Ki67 >10% at wk 4, compared to 231 of the 815 (28.3%) who had BL Ki67 >15% and subsequent Ki67 >10% at wk 4. 2% of pts who remained on NET due to on-treatment Ki67 <10% had PD. Response and PEPI-0 rates by group will be reported. Conclusion: ALTERNATE trial data support a model whereby levels of ER, PR and Ki67 at diagnosis can be used for the identification of postmenopausal pts with primary ER+/HER2- BC who are appropriate for NET. When baseline ER Allred scores are >6 and Ki67 ≤15%, there is a low likelihood of ET-resistant disease. When BL Ki67 is >15%, ET sensitivity is variable, and on-treatment biopsy for Ki67 may assist in triaging regarding NET appropriateness, particularly given the extremely low local PD rates seen in ALTERNATE when on-treatment Ki67 was <10%. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171, UG1CA189856, U10CA180868 (NRG); NCI BIQSFP, BCRF, Genentech, AstraZeneca. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org; Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT01953588 Table 1 Baseline levels of ER, PR, and Ki67 in Relation to Wk 4 Ki67 (N=1,085)BaselineWeek 4GroupNERAllred ScorePRAllred ScoreKi67Ki67 ≤10%N (%)Ki67 >10%N (%)1N=26<6≤15%0 (0%)2 (100%)9 (90)N=86<6>15%1 (12.5%)7 (87.5%)2AN=647 or 8<6≤15%61 (95.3%)3 (4.7%)90 (30.1)N=2357 or 8<6>15%148 (63%)87 (37%)2BN=466 or 7≥6≤15%42 (91.3%)4 (8.7%)51 (30.2)N=1236 or 7≥6>15%76 (61.8%)47 (38.2%)3N=1508≥6≤15%143 (95.3%)7 (4.7%)104 (17.1)N=4578≥6>15%360 (78.8%)97 (21.2%) Citation Format: Matthew J Ellis, Vera Suman, A. Marilyn Leitch, Souzan Sanati, Kiran Vij, Gary W Unzeitig, Jeremy Hoog, Mark Watson, Olwen Hahn, Joseph Guenther, Abigail Caudle, Erika Crouch, Horacio Maluf, Mitch Dowsett, Amy Tiersten, Monica Mita, Wajeeha Razaq, Tina J Hieken, Yang Wang, Travis Dockter, Jo Anne Zujewski, Anna Weiss, Clifford Hudis, Eric P Winer, Kelly Hunt, Ann H Partridge, Cynthia X Ma, Lisa A Carey. Validation of a predictive model for potential response to neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) in postmenopausal women with clinical stage II or III estrogen receptor positive (ER+) and HER2 negative (HER2-) breast cancer (BC): An ALTERNATE trial analysis (Alliance A011106) [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 PD2-10.

Abstract Background: Ki67 values >10% 2-4 weeks (wks) after starting neoadjuvant ET (NET) indicates persistent cell proliferation, resistance to ET, and is associated with increased risk of recurrence. The ACOSOG Z1031 trial suggested that these tumors are also relatively chemotherapy (chemo) resistant with a low pathologic complete response (pCR) rate to NCT. The ALTERNATE trial (NCT01953588) is a randomized study of neoadjuvant anastrozole (ANA), fulvestrant (FUL), or ANA + FUL in postmenopausal patients (pt) with newly diagnosed clinical stage II or III ER+ (Allred score 6-8)/HER2- BC. Ki67 >10% at wk 4 or 12 after starting NET triggered triage to NCT of physician choice or weekly paclitaxel. Pts who refused protocol-directed therapy, were not candidates for NCT, or decided to undergo immediate surgery are being followed per protocol. Here we report the rates of pCR and residual cancer burden (RCB) following NCT for pts triaged to NCT due to Ki67 >10% at wk 4 or 12. Results: Of the 1,299 eligible pts randomized to receive ANA, FUL, or ANA + FUL, 286 (22%) had Ki67 >10% at wk 4 or 12. 168 of these 286 pts (58.7%) chose to switch to NCT, 32 went to surgery (11.2%), and 86 discontinued further protocol-directed therapy (30.1%). Among the 168 pts who underwent NCT, the presenting clinical T stages were cT2 (n=113; 67.26%), cT3 (n=47; 27.98%) and cT4 (n=8; 4.76%) and N stages were cN0 (n=82; 48.8%), cN1 (n=75; 44.6%), cN2/3 (n=9; 5.4%) and cNx (n=2; 1.2%). Central ER testing was performed on pre-treatment biopsies and confirmed ER Allred score 6-8 in 155 of 168 (92.2%) pts, with the rest being ER Allred score 4-5 (n=5; 3%), ER- (Allred score 0) (n=2; 1.2%), or not tested (n=6; 3.6%). Most (n=139; 82.7%) were ER+/PR+, while 17.3% (n=29) were ER+/PR-, and tumor grades were G1 (n=10; 6%), G2 (n=99; 58.9%), G3 (n=54; 32.1%), not reported (n=5; 3%). Baseline Ki67 levels prior to NET were >10% in 94% (n=158), ≤10% in 3% (n=5), and not done in 3% (n=5). NCT regimens administered included doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) followed by paclitaxel (T) (n=60; 35.71%); weekly paclitaxel (n=56; 33.33%), docetaxel/cyclophosphamide (TC) (n=33; 19.65%), other doxorubicin and/or taxane containing regimen (n=17; 10.12%), and cyclophosphamide/methotrexate/fluorouracil (CMF) (n=2; 1.19%). 35 (20.8%) pts did not complete planned course of NCT due to toxicity (n=27) or refusal (n=8). 154 NCT pts underwent surgery (mastectomy in 40.3%, and breast conserving surgery in 59.7%). The path ypT stages were Tis/0 (n=10; 6.5%), T1 (n=62; 40.3%), T2 (n=61; 39.6%), and T3/4 (n=21; 13.6%), and the ypN stages were N0 (n=66; 42.9%), N1 (n=57; 37%), N2/3 (n=30; 19.5%), and Nx (n=1; 0.6%). Among the 168 pts who started on NCT (intent to treat population), there were 8 pCRs (no invasive disease in the breast or lymph nodes) (4.8%; 95% CI: 2.1% to 9.2%). Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) categories include RCB 0 (n=8; 4.8%), RCB 1 (n=15; 8.9%), RCB 2 (n=82; 48.8%), RCB 3 (n=42; 25.0%), and not determined (n=21; 12.5%). Correlations of baseline pt and tumor characteristics with pathology response to NCT will also be presented. Conclusion: In pts with NET-resistant ER+/HER2- BC, salvage NCT is not likely to induce a complete or near complete response. More effective treatments are needed for this high-risk ER+/HER2- pt population. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171, UG1CA189856, U10CA180868 (NRG); NCI BIQSFP, BCRF, Genentech, AstraZeneca. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT01953588 Citation Format: Cynthia X Ma, Vera Suman, A. Marilyn Leitch, Souzan Sanati, Kiran Vij, Gary W Unzeitig, Jeremy Hoog, Mark Watson, Olwen Hahn, Joseph Guenther, Abigail Caudle, Erika Crouch, Horacio Maluf, Amy Tiersten, Monica Mita, Wajeeha Razaq, Tina J Hieken, Yang Wang, Travis Dockter, Jo Anne Zujewski, Anna Weiss, Kelly Hunt, Clifford Hudis, Eric P Winer, Matthew J Ellis, Lisa A Carey, Ann H Partridge. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) response in postmenopausal women with clinical stage II or III estrogen receptor positive (ER+) and HER2 negative (HER2-) breast cancer (BC) resistant to endocrine therapy (ET) in the ALTERNATE trial (Alliance A011106) [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 GS4-05.

Background: Light chain (AL) amyloidosis is a rare disease in which deposits of insoluble amyloid derived from immunoglobulin light chains accumulate and cause dysfunction of organs including the heart and kidneys. In order to reverse organ damage and improve overall survival, treatment must provide rapid, deep, and sustained hematologic responses. Although therapies approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma have demonstrated some efficacy, there are currently no health authority-approved treatments for AL amyloidosis. A retrospective observational study was undertaken to characterize patients and describe treatment patterns in patients with AL amyloidosis from real-world data in the US. Methods: Data were extracted from Optum Electronic Health Records (EHR) and Optum Clinformatics Data Mart (claims) databases. Eligible patients had (1) a diagnosis of AL amyloidosis (ICD-10 code E85.81) on or after January 1, 2008 or (2) a diagnosis of amyloidosis (ICD-9 codes 277.30, 277.39; ICD-10 codes E85.89, E85.9) on or after January 1, 2008 and at least one line of therapy (LOT) comprising one or more of the following treatments: bendamustine bortezomib, carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, daratumumab, dexamethasone, doxorubicin, elotuzumab, etoposide, interferon alfa-2a, interferon alfa-2b, ixazomib, lenalidomide, melphalan, panobinostat, pomalidomide, prednisone/prednisolone, thalidomide, vincristine, or autologous stem cell transplant. Patients were required to have continuous medical enrollment during the 365 days prior to the index amyloidosis diagnosis date (claims data) or have first active date at least 365 days prior to index amyloidosis date (EHR data), must not have had prior cancer in the 365-day period prior to the index amyloidosis diagnosis date, and must have been age ≥18 years at time of amyloidosis diagnosis. Patients treated with dexamethasone only or dexamethasone and prednisolone only for ≤90 days and those treated with prednisone/prednisolone only irrespective of duration were excluded. LOTs were defined by a start date, an end date, and a distinct regimen made up of ≥1 drugs. Patients may have multiple sequential LOTs during the available follow-up period. Comorbidities were scored according to the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). A score of 0 reflects no comorbidities; higher scores reflect increased mortality risk and the maximum score is 24. Descriptive statistics are provided for patient characteristics at index diagnosis date for patients who had ≥1 LOT, distribution of regimens in each LOT, treatment attrition, and duration of treatment in each line of therapy and by regimen. Results: Data from 1688 patients (Optum claims, n=624; Optum EHR, n=1064) were included in the analysis (Figure). Median age at diagnosis was 67 years and 55.7% of patients were male. Almost 70% of patients had an index diagnosis date between 2013 and 2019. The median CCI score at index diagnosis date (based on comorbidities in the 365-day pre-index diagnosis period) was 1 and 10.9% of patients had a stem cell transplant on or after the index diagnosis date. The three most common comorbidities were hypertension (50.8%), renal failure (26.2%), and congestive heart failure (24.6%). Median follow-up period was 28 months. Treatment information for regimens used by ≥5% of patients for LOT1 is summarized in the Table. The most common treatment regimen for LOT1 was a proteasome inhibitor (PI), an alkylating agent, and a steroid (n=392, 23.2%); this combination was used for an average of 111 days. Of patients treated with this combination, the most common regimen was bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (VCd), used by 358 patients. Steroid only (dexamethasone for ≥90 days) regimens accounted for 16.4% and a PI ± steroid for 13.2% of LOT1. A limitation of the study is that assumptions were used to classify AL amyloidosis vs other types of amyloidosis. Conclusions: VCd is the most commonly used regimen in patients with newly-diagnosed AL amyloidosis. This is consistent with clinical guidelines and real world data from Europe (Palladini et al, EHA 2020), supporting this regimen as the current standard of care for treatment of patients with newly-diagnosed AL amyloidosis. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Zonder:Intellia, Amgen, Takeda, Janssen, Regeneron, Alnylam, Caelum, Oncopeptides: Consultancy; BMS, Celgene: Research Funding. Hoffman:Loxo: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Wong:Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Fortis: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Liedtke:Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria. Abonour:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. D'Souza:Amgen, Merck, TenoBio: Research Funding; Akcea, Imbrium, Janssen, Pfizer: Consultancy. Lee:Janssen: Current Employment. Nair:Janssen: Current Employment. Potluri:SmartAnalyst Inc.: Current Employment. Weiss:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Vermeulen:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Lam:Janssen: Current Employment. Mehra:Janssen: Current Employment.

Germ line mutations in H3F3A and H3F3B cause a previously unidentified neurodevelopmental syndrome.

Abstract Background The effectiveness of catheter ablation as a management modality amongst patients with coexisting atrial flutter (AFL) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is scarcely studied. Methods Appropriate ICD 10 codes were applied to the 2016 and 2017 National Readmission Database (NRD) to isolate patients having coexistent AFL and HFrEF including who had undergone an ablation. All-cause mortality at the end of 1 year was used as a primary outcome. Readmission due to AFL, heart failure (HF) and other causes were secondary outcomes. The hazard ratios were generated using Cox regression analysis while the time to event analysis was demonstrated with the Kaplan Meier curves. Results Out of a total of 9966 patients with AFL and HFrEF, 1980 (24.79%) patients underwent catheter ablation. The primary outcome, all-cause mortality (2.8% vs. 4.6%, HR: 0.610, 95% CI: 0.460–0.808, p=0.001) at the end of 1 year was significantly lower. Significant difference was also noted amongst two groups when it came to secondary outcomes such as readmissions due to AFL (1.6% vs. 6.3%, HR: 0.247, 95% CI: 0.173–0.354, p<0.001), HF (8.2% vs. 11.4%, HR: 0.693, 95% CI: 0.587–0.819, p<0.001) and other causes (29.4% vs. 37.1%, HR: 0.735, 95% CI: 0.673–0.804, p<0.001) Conclusion Ablative intervention amongst AFL patients with concomitant HFrEF showed a significant reduction in all-cause mortality. It also leads to significant reductions in readmissions due to AFL, HF and other causes at the end of one year. Outcomes of AFL and HFrEF Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Abstract Background The availability of real-world data regarding the impact of the catheter ablation in patients with concomitant atrial flutter (AFL) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is limited. Methods 2016 and 2017 National Readmission Database (NRD) was subjected to appropriate ICD-10 codes to identify and extract patients having coexistent atrial flutter and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction including who had undergone ablation. At 1 year, all-cause mortality was utilized as the primary outcome while readmissions due to AFL, heart failure (HF) and any other causes were designated as secondary outcomes. Kaplan Meier curves were used for a time to event analysis. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to generate hazard ratios. Results Out of a total 6099 patients with AFL and HFpEF, 906 (14.85%) underwent catheter ablation. At 1 year all cause mortality (3%, vs. 4.4%, HR: 0.661, 95% CI: 0.444–0.985, p=0.042) and readmissions due to AFL (2.3% vs. 5.3%, HR: 0.424, 95% CI: 0.272–0.661, p<0.001) were significantly less among ablation group. Readmission due to HF (9.3% vs. 9.7%, HR: 0.938, 95% CI: 0.745–1.182, p=0.587) and other causes (37% vs.40.3%, HR: 0.926, 95% CI: 0.825–1.040, p=0.193) did not show any significant difference in outcomes at the end of 1 year. Conclusion The utilization of catheter ablation amongst AFL patients with concomitant HFpEF showed a significant reduction in all-cause mortality and readmission due to AFL. However, it did not show any significant changes in readmissions due to HF or other causes at the end of one year. Outcomes of AFL and HFpEF Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None