Citations

Abstract Background: trALL is an important secondary primary malignancy (SPM) that has recently been appreciated. While patients (pts) with MM have an 8%-17% risk of developing an SPM while on lenalidomide (R) maintenance following autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), trALL has been rarely observed. Little is known about the characteristics of trALL in pts with MM compared to pts who had other malignancies prior to the development of trALL. We define tALL as any prior exposure to cytotoxic chemotherapy and/or radiation for another malignancy, and herein, we report a comparative analysis of characteristics and outcomes of pts with trALL with and without MM from the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center (MCCC). Methods: We performed a systematic search in the 3-site MCCC registry and included all pts diagnosed and received at least 1 cycle of ALL-directed therapy and/or underwent allogeneic transplantation (AlloHCT) for ALL between 2007-2020. All cases of trALL in this series are B-ALL. Comparisons of characteristics between trALL patients with and without MM were made using a Wilcoxon rank sum test (continuous variables) or Fisher's exact test (categorical variables). Time-to-event variables were compared using unadjusted Cox proportional hazards regression models. Results: 70 trALL pts (14 MM [20%], 56 non-MM [80%]) were identified during the study period. The median age at trALL diagnosis was 63.9 (range 47-71) for MM pts and 63.1 (range 18.2-84) for non-MM pts. Median follow-up from trALL diagnosis was 1.42 years (range 0.02-10.6 years). The most common prior non-MM malignancies among tALL pts were breast (28.6%), lymphoma (17.9%), myeloid (17.9%), and GU/GYN (14.3%). Amongst the 14 MM pts, 100% (n=10) had ISS-I disease, 8 (57%) had IgG K MM, 1 (n=10) had high risk cytogenetics, 8 (57.1%) received R-based induction , 4 (28.6%) received CyBorD induction, 4(28.6%) received VRD induction, 3 (21.4%) received RD induction. 10 (71.4%) pts were actively on R when they developed trALL, 8 (57.1%) pts received prior ASCT. The median time to develop trALL following ASCT for MM was 46.3 months (m), (95% CI 20.4-67.6), 12 (85.7%) pts received R maintenance with a median duration of 53m (95% CI 16.9-121). The median time to develop trALL after initiation of R maintenance was 61.2m (95% CI 16.9-123.4). The most common trALL induction regimen received was HyperCVAD which was used in 71.4% of MM pts and 51.8% of non-MM pts. In comparison to non-MM pts, MM patients had a significantly lower WBC at diagnosis (Median: 2.0 vs. 5.8, P=0.005),no t(9;22) BCR/ABL1 cytogenetics (0.0% vs. 35.7%, P=0.008), a higher frequency of hypodiploid/near-triploid (Ho-Tri) cytogenetics (42.9% vs. 12.5%, P=0.009), and a lower frequency of prior radiation therapy (7.1% vs. 44.6%, P=0.012). MM pts had a higher frequency of AlloHCT for trALL (71.4% vs. 42.9%, P=0.075) and were more commonly in complete response (CR) at transplant (100.0% vs. 70.8%, P=0.078). No trALL in MM pts were Ph-like ALL. There was a statistically significant difference in time to development of trALL between previous malignancy locations (P=0.018), with GU/GYN (Median: 9 years) having the longest time and myeloid (Median: 3 years) having the shortest time; MM was 6 years. In the overall pt cohort, 56 (80%) pts achieved a complete response after induction and 60% (n=25) were minimal residual disease (MRD)+ after induction. Pts with MM had a significantly lower likelihood of being MRD+ after induction (OR=0.09, P=0.015). Overall, 24.3% of pts relapsed after induction therapy for trALL; 39 (55.5%) died after trALL diagnosis including 43% (n=35) who died after AlloHCT. Although pts with MM tended to have better outcomes compared to non-MM trALL pts in terms of overall survival after trALL diagnosis (Figure 1A), survival after AlloHCT (Figure 1B), relapse rate after trALL diagnosis and non-relapse mortality after AlloHCT, none of these findings were statistically significant in this small cohort (Figure 1C). Conclusion: trALL is a unique SPM that can occur in pts with MM. It is associated with Ho-Tri cytogenetics and is BCR/ABL1 negative. The majority of MM pts that developed trALL had undergone prior ASCT and were on R maintenance when they developed trALL. Despite being more likely to have adverse cytogenetics features, MM-associated trALL has similar survival compared to non-MM-associated trALL which speaks to the poor survival outcomes of this SPM. Further research on trALL in MM pts is merited. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Litzow: Amgen: Research Funding; Pluristem: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Bergsagel: Janssen: Consultancy. Fonseca: Scientific Advisory Board: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caris Life Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy; Patent: Prognosticaton of myeloma via FISH: Patents & Royalties; Bayer: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Mayo Clinic in Arizona: Current Employment; Juno: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Aduro: Consultancy; OncoTracker: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Dispenzieri: Takeda: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. Ailawadhi: GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Medimmune: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Ascentage: Research Funding. Foran: actinium: Research Funding; taiho: Honoraria; bms: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria; pfizer: Honoraria; novartis: Honoraria; OncLive: Honoraria; abbvie: Research Funding; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; takeda: Research Funding; trillium: Research Funding; aptose: Research Funding; revolution medicine: Honoraria; syros: Honoraria; sanofi aventis: Honoraria; certara: Honoraria; gamida: Honoraria; kura: Research Funding; h3bioscience: Research Funding; aprea: Research Funding; sellas: Research Funding; stemline: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: AHCT is a standard of care treatment for eligible patients (pts) with MM. Most consensus guidelines recommend that at the time of first AHCT, enough APBHC should be collected to perform two AHCT. However, recent studies have shown that with each decade after 1990, the use of cryopreserved APBHC for a salvage AHCT has declined and is now in the range of 4.6-15% in the decade between 2010-2018. The collection and storage of APBHC for two AHCT incurs additional costs and a prior single center cost analysis revealed that having had collected for just one AHCT in a cohort of 726 MM pts would have saved 3.8 million USD between 1993 and 2011. 1 Most centers that perform AHCT for MM pts continue to collect and store PBAHC for 2 AHCT. Herein we evaluate utilization trends and costs associated with cryopreserved APBHC in patients with MM. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the clinicopathologic data from 440 patients with MM who underwent APBHC mobilization and collection at Mayo Clinic Florida between 2010 and 2019. The number of apheresis/collection sessions and APBHC product collection yields were determined for patients who were mobilized by any method. We estimated the costs involved in PBSC collection (apheresis) and cryopreservation storage based on our institution-specific charges as of May 2021. The cost of 1 session of APBHC collection/apheresis was $4,680 and the cost of 1 year of APBHC cryopreservation was $4,790 per patient. Statistical analysis was performed using JMP Pro 15 (SAS). Chi-square and Fischer exact tests were used to carry out univariate analysis for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank sum/Kruskal Wallis for continuous variables. Results: Patient demographics are shown in Table 1. 440 pts underwent at least one collection session and 347 underwent at least 1 AHCT. The median number of mobilization sessions was 1 (95% CI 1.0-1.03), the median number of collection/apheresis sessions was 2.0 (95% CI 2.39-2.59), 84.3% (n=371) required ≥1 collection session. The median number of CD34 stem cells collected was 7.6 x10 6 (95% CI 7.76-8.19 x10 6), and the median number of infused CD34 cells was 4 x10 6(95% CI 4.13-4.37x10 6). The median cost of total collection sessions (defined as # of apheresis/collection sessions x $4,680) was $9,360 per pt (95% CI $11,181-$12,100). The median cost of cryopreservation (defined as # of years of storage x $4,790) was $19,160 per pt (95% CI $9,682-$22,252). The median number of years of storage was 4 (95% CI 4.11-4.65). 77(17.5%) pts have had APBHC in storage for <2 years, 218 (49.5%) have had APBHC in storage for 2-5 years, and 145 (33%) had have APBHC in storage for >5 years. The median time from MM diagnosis to AHCT was 9.0 months (range 13.8-18.5). 82% of patients collected enough APBHC (≥6x10 6, at least 3x10 6 per AHCT)for 2 AHCT. 8% of patients had all APBHC infused during their first AHCT, 83.5% had half of their APBHC infused during their first AHCT, and 8.1% had a different amount of APBHC infused during their first AHCT thus 91.6% of patients who collected APBHC had cells in storage. The median OS for the entire cohort after AHCT was 94.7 months (95% CI 88.6-100). Out of 347 patients who had stem cells in cryopreservation, 5 (1.4%) underwent a salvage AHCT and 3 (0.9%) underwent a tandem AHCT. 61% percent of patients had ≥1 excess collection sessions for APBHC that ultimately went unused. The median cost of excess collection sessions was $4,680 per pt (range, $4,680-$32,760) and the median total cost for excess collection sessions plus costs for storage was $23,840 per pt (range, $4,680-$85,450). The sum of costs of excess collection sessions was $2,077,920 and the sum of costs of cryopreservation was $5,812,665. Conclusion: The results of this single center analysis show that only 1.4% of patients underwent a salvage AHCT between 2010 and 2019 while 91.6% had APBHC left in storage which confirms the increase in storage of cryopreserved APBHC and declining trend in the use of stored APBHC for salvage AHCT in pts with MM. This is likely due to the advent of next generation novel therapies such as monoclonal antibodies, proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory agents. Excess collections, and cryopreservation of unused APBHC incur a cost of nearly $8 million. Institutional policies regarding universal APBHC collection and long-term storage should be reevaluated. 1Phipps C, et al. Bone Marrow Transplantation 2015:50;663-667. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. Ailawadhi: Sanofi: Consultancy; Medimmune: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Ascentage: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Cellectar: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: SUMOylation, a post-translational modification analogous to ubiquitination, attaches a small, ubiquitin-like modifier (SUMO) to target proteins. SUMOylation plays a central role in the immune system by regulating type I interferon (IFN-I) expression, thereby functioning to constrain the innate immune response (Decque Nat Immunol 2016), and limit tumor immune surveillance. The SUMOylation pathway is often overexpressed in multiple myeloma (MM) and is associated with poor outcomes (Driscoll Blood 2010). TAK-981 is a first-in-class, small-molecule inhibitor of SUMO-activating enzyme, which blocks the SUMOylation cascade (Langston J Med Chem 2021) and increases IFN-I production and signaling in innate immune cells (Nakamura AACR 2019). In ex vivo assays, TAK-981 activated the IFN-I pathway, increased phagocytic activity of monocyte-derived macrophages, and increased natural killer (NK) cell cytotoxicity via IFN-I signaling (Nakamura AACR 2019). The ability of TAK-981 to promote activation of macrophages and NK cells provides a mechanistic rationale for its use in combination with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) reliant on antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity and phagocytosis; in vivo experiments have demonstrated synergistic activity between TAK-981 and rituximab, and between TAK-981 and the anti-CD38 mAbs daratumumab (dara) (Nakamura SITC 2020) or mezagitamab (meza; TAK-079; Figure 1). Patients with MM who have disease refractory to the three most effective classes of anti-myeloma therapies (proteasome inhibitors [PIs], immunomodulatory drugs [IMiDs], and anti-CD38 mAbs) have a poor prognosis, with median survival 9.2 months (Gandhi Leukemia 2019). Given the incurable nature of advanced MM and the highly complex mechanisms of resistance, continued efforts to better understand MM biology at the time of relapse and to translate this into effective treatment combinations are needed. Combination therapies that engage the immune system to treat MM may offer substantial clinical benefit. Methods: To be eligible for this multicenter, open-label, Phase 1b/2 trial (NCT04776018), patients must have failed at least 3 prior lines of anti-myeloma therapy, have MM disease that is triple-class refractory (defined as refractory/intolerant to ≥1 PI and ≥1 IMiD, and refractory to ≥1 anti-CD38 mAb), and have demonstrated disease progression on their last therapy. Prior CAR-T therapy is allowed. Patients will be assigned to TAK-981 plus subcutaneous (SC) meza (Phase 1 Part 1) or SC dara (dara and hyaluronidase-fihj; Phase 1 Part 2). The primary objectives of Phase 1b are to determine safety and tolerability, and to select the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) and schedule for TAK-981 with each mAb; secondary objectives are to evaluate preliminary antitumor activity, to characterize TAK-981 pharmacokinetics (PK), and to explore pharmacodynamic (PD) markers of TAK-981 target engagement and SUMOylation pathway inhibition. Approximately 30 patients will participate in the Phase 1b Part 1 dose escalation of TAK-981 plus meza (~15 patients per dosing schedule), and ~15 patients will participate in the Phase 1b Part 2 dose escalation of TAK-981 plus SC dara. The primary objective of Phase 2 is to evaluate the efficacy of TAK-981 at the RP2D in combination with an anti-CD38 mAb; ~36 patients will be enrolled. In Phase 1b, patients will receive TAK-981 via a 1-hour intravenous infusion either on days 1, 4, 8, 11, and 15 (twice weekly; BIW) or on days, 1, 8, 15, and 22 (weekly; QW) for 2x 28-day cycles, then 8x every other week, then monthly. Meza 600 mg SC or dara 1800 mg SC will be given 8x weekly, 8x every other week, then monthly, in a 28-day cycle (Figure 2). Treatment will continue until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (max. 24 cycles). TAK-981 dose escalation will proceed from 60 mg BIW, a dose shown to be pharmacologically active in a first-in-human, single-agent TAK-981 study (TAK-981-1002; data on file). Dose escalation will be guided by Bayesian Optimal Internal Design with Informative Prior (iBOIN) plus consideration of other safety, clinical, PK, and PD data. The iBOIN design selects the true maximum tolerated dose (if any) with high accuracy by allocating more patients to dose levels with a prior dose-limiting toxicity probability closest to the target of 0.3. This study is currently enrolling patients, with the first patient dosed in May 2021. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lonial: AMGEN: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Boccia: BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Morphosis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Yimer: Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; GSK: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Speakers Bureau; Texas Oncology: Current Employment. Levy: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Promotional speaker, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Promotional speaker, Speakers Bureau; Dova: Consultancy, Other: Promotional speaker; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Promotional speaker, Speakers Bureau; Amgen Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Promotional speaker, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Other: Promotional speaker; Epizyme: Consultancy, Other: Promotional speaker; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Promotional speaker; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Promotional speaker, Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Promotional speaker, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Promotional speaker, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Promotional speaker, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Abonour: Takeda: Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene-BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jensen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Mohan: Medical College of Wisconsin: Current Employment. Girnius: BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Speakers Bureau. Rosenbaum: Takeda: Honoraria; Akcea: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Nadeem: Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Berg: Takeda: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Chao: Takeda: Current Employment. Berger: Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc.: Current Employment. Nakamura: Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc.: Current Employment. Zhang: Takeda: Current Employment. Song: Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Current Employment. Ward: Takeda: Current Employment. Proscurshim: Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Kumar: Novartis: Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: 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, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: 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. OffLabel Disclosure: Study of the investigational agent TAK-981 in combination with daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj or the investigational agent mezagitamab (TAK-079).

Abstract Introduction Post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) and calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) based GVHD prophylaxis has shown lower rates of acute and chronic GVHD when compared with the traditional prophylaxis of calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) and methotrexate (MTX) in matched donor (related and unrelated) allo-HCT. The combination of PTCy with sirolimus as a calcineurin inhibitor-free GVHD prophylaxis has shown promising results with cumulative rates of grade II-IV acute and chronic GVHD in the range of 15-27% and 20-27% respectively in patients undergoing matched and haploidentical allo-HCT. We report a single center, nonrandomized comparison of patients undergoing matched donor allo-HCT receiving PTCy in combination with sirolimus (PTCy/Siro) with those receiving the standard GVHD prophylaxis of tacrolimus and MTX (Tac/MTX). Methods One hundred and sixteen consecutive patients who had undergone a MRD or MUD allo-HCT between January 2018 to January 2021 and received either PTCy with sirolimus or tacrolimus with methotrexate as GVHD prophylaxis regimens were eligible for inclusion. The selection of PTCy with sirolimus or tacrolimus with methotrexate as GVHD prophylaxis regimen was based on physician choice. Primary endpoints were cumulative incidence of acute (grade II to IV) and chronic GVHD. Secondary endpoints were a) neutrophil and platelet engraftment; b) overall survival (OS); c) non-relapse mortality (NRM); d) relapse; e) clinical infections and f) time to immunosuppression (IS) withdrawal. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate 1-year and 2-year freedom from long term adverse events, including chronic GVHD, relapse, NRM and OS. All tests were two-sided with alpha level set at 0.05 for statistical significance. Results Out of a total of 116 patients undergoing MRD and MUD allo-HCT, 29 received PTCy/Siro and 87 Tac/MTX. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two arms except patients in PTCy/Siro were younger with median of 48 (range: 24-69) years vs. 61 (range: 20-73) years (p=0.004) in Tac/MTX. There was difference in primary indication for allo-HCT between the two arms with non-hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) being the most common in PTCy/Siro and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in the Tac/MTX group. Patients receiving PTCy/Siro had a significantly higher median CD3 day 100 chimerism at 100 (90-100) vs. 90 (40-100) % (<0.001) and a significantly shorter median time to IS withdrawal at 138 (37-312) vs 232(66-1120) days for patients receiving Tac/MTX. There was no difference between the two arms for length of hospital stay and time to neutrophil engraftment, but PTCy/Siro had a significantly longer median time for platelet engraftment at 17.5 (12-74) vs.14 (11-38) days (p= 0.001). No significant difference was observed between the two arms for incidence of grade II to IV acute GVHD, grade III to IV acute GVHD, steroid refractory acute GVHD or clinical infections (Table 1). After a median follow up of 1.1 (range: 0-1.8) years, patients receiving PTCy/Siro were significantly less likely to have chronic GVHD with 2-year freedom from GVHD of 75% (95%CI: 58-98%) vs 20% (95%CI 10-40%), p=0.005 (Figure 1). There was no difference between the two arms for OS, disease relapse or non-relapse mortality (Table 2). Conclusion In this study, the combination of PTCy/Siro is associated with a significantly lower risk of chronic GVHD when compared against the traditional GVHD prophylaxis of CNI and methotrexate, despite significantly earlier IS withdrawal. Other long-term outcomes of interest remained comparable between the two arms. Chronic GVHD contributes to significant morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing allo-HCT. Newer strategies to limit the impact of chronic GVHD are needed. The results of our study warrant validation in a large, multicenter, randomized prospective trial. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. Foran: gamida: Honoraria; takeda: Research Funding; novartis: Honoraria; trillium: Research Funding; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; OncLive: Honoraria; abbvie: Research Funding; certara: Honoraria; sanofi aventis: Honoraria; syros: Honoraria; taiho: Honoraria; revolution medicine: Honoraria; bms: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria; pfizer: Honoraria; actinium: Research Funding; aptose: Research Funding; kura: Research Funding; h3bioscience: Research Funding; aprea: Research Funding; sellas: Research Funding; stemline: Research Funding.

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.

Hematopoietic growth factors, including erythrocyte stimulating agents (ESAs), granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, and thrombopoietin mimetics, can mitigate anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia resulting from chemotherapy for the treatment of cancer. In the context of pandemic SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with cancer have been identified as a group at high risk of morbidity and mortality from this infection. Our subcommittee of the NCCN Hematopoietic Growth Factors Panel convened a voluntary group to review the potential value of expanded use of such growth factors in the current high-risk environment. Although recommendations are available on the NCCN website in the COVID-19 Resources Section (https://www.nccn.org/covid-19/), these suggestions are provided without substantial context or reference. Herein we review the rationale and data underlying the suggested alterations to the use of hematopoietic growth factors for patients with cancer in the COVID-19 era.

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.

e24082 Background: Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) is associated with significant short- and long-term sequelae that affect patients’ overall quality of life (QoL) and their physical and psychological well-being. Studies have shown improvement in patient QoL and physician satisfaction with palliative care involvement in the allo-HCT process. However, patient and physician perceptions regarding palliative care often impact timely referral. We conducted a prospective study to examine patient perceptions of palliative care both before and after palliative care consultation during evaluation for allo-HCT. Methods: This is a prospective, single-center study, of patients > 18 years of age, who were referred for a palliative care consultation as part of standard evaluation for allo-HCT. Patients were administered a pre- and post-visit internally derived questionnaire to assess their understanding and comfort level with palliative care. The primary objective of this study was to examine patient perceptions of palliative care consultation during evaluation for allo-HCT. Primary end point was the change in patient pre- and post- questionnaire responses. Secondary endpoint was the completion of advance care planning documentation pre- and post- consultation. Results: We enrolled 32 patients (male = 14) undergoing evaluation for allo-HCT with a primary diagnosis of AML (n = 8), NHL (n = 8), MDS (n = 7), ALL (n = 2), and other (n = 7). Following consultation with palliative care there was a statistically significant increase in patient understanding of the reason for the appointment, p = 0.0006. There was also a significant increase in patient’s knowledge of palliative care, with only 28% describing their knowledge as “good” or “excellent” prior to consultation and 79.3% after consultation, p < 0.0001. There was an observed positive, non-statistically significant, trend in patient comfort level with palliative medicine with only 20.7% (n = 6) describing their comfort as “high” or “very high” prior to consultation and 51.7% (n = 15) after consultation, p = 0.60. There was a higher rate of completion of advance care planning documentation following consultation with palliative medicine 56.3% vs 71.4%, p = 0.042. Conclusions: Palliative care consultation prior to allo-HCT increases a patient’s understanding of the role of palliative medicine as part of their allo-HCT and improves advance care planning. These findings need to be validated in a larger, multicenter, patient cohort.