Citations

Abstract Aim: A phase III trial of lenalidomide plus high (standard) dose dex (RD) versus lenalidomide plus low dose dex (Rd) in newly diagnosed myeloma (MM). Methods: Pts with untreated, symptomatic MM were eligible. Pts in the RD arm (Arm A) received lenalidomide 25 mg/day PO days 1–21 every 28 days plus dex 40 mg days 1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 PO every 28 days; pts in the Rd arm (Arm B) received lenalidomide at the same dose plus dex 40 mg days 1, 8, 15, and 22 PO every 28 days. The primary endpoint was response rate at 4 months, with the null hypothesis being that the response rates in the two 2 arms are equivalent. Planned sample size was 196 eligible pts per arm with one-sided 0.10 Type I and 0.05 Type II error rate. All analysis were performed on an intent to treat basis. An independent DMC recommended release of study results. Results: 445 pts (median age, 65 yrs) were accrued; 223 randomized to RD, 222 to Rd. Median follow-up time is 17 months. Arms were well balanced for age, gender, stage, bone lesions, hemoglobin, beta-2 microglobulin, performance status, bone marrow plasma cells, and M protein levels at baseline. Major grade 3 or higher toxicities, including DVT/PE and infections, were significantly higher in the high dose dex arm (see Table). Overall survival (OS) at the second pre-planned interim analysis was significantly superior with lenalidomide plus low dose dex, P<0.001; one year survival 96% (Rd) versus 87% (RD). The 18 month survival rate is 91% versus 80%, respectively. OS differences in favor of the low dose dex arm were seen in pts <65 (P=0.022; one year rate 97% vs 92%) as well as pts 65 and older (P=0.002; one year rate 94% vs 83%), respectively. Sixty-one patients have died; 42 in the RD arm and 16 in Rd arm. The cause of death has been verified by detailed chart review in 38 patients. Of 29 verified deaths in the RD arm, 13 were due to disease progression, 6 thrombosis/embolism, 3 infection, 3 cardiac ischemia, 1 stroke, and 1 respiratory failure. Of 9 verified deaths in the Rd arm, 5 were due to disease progression, 2 infection, 1 thrombosis/embolism, and 1 cardiac arrest. Response rate data are expected to be available at the time of the meeting. Conclusions: Lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) is associated with superior OS compared to lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone (RD) in newly diagnosed MM. The increased mortality in Arm A is due to disease progression (myeloma deaths) as well as increased toxicity. This study has major implications for the use of high-dose dexamethasone in the treatment of newly diagnosed MM. Major Grade 3 or Higher Adverse Events Toxicity Arm A % Arm B % P value Neutropenia 10 19 0.01 DVT/PE 25 9 <0.001 Infections 16 6 <0.001 Any grade 3 or higher non-hematologic 49 32 <0.001 Any grade 4 or higher non-hematologic 20 9 <0.001 Deaths in first 4 months 5 0.5 0.006

Abstract Background: Immunomodulatory agents and proteasome inhibitors have significantly improved outcomes in the management of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). As a consequence, the role of upfront autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) has become more controversial. The ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group trial E4A03 demonstrated the superiority of lenalidomide (LEN) and low-dose dexamethasone (DEX; Ld) over LEN and high dose DEX (LD) in newly diagnosed MM (Rajkumar SV, Lancet Oncol, 2010). This led to the universal acceptance of Ld as a standard induction regimen. More recently, the FIRST study demonstrated the superiority of Ld as continuous therapy vs Ld given x 18 cycles and melphalan-thalidomide-prednisone x 12 cycles proving continuous Ld should be considered standard of care (Benboubker L, NEJM, 2014). Upon completion of four cycles of therapy, patients enrolled in E4A03 had the option of proceeding to ASCT or continuing on their assigned Ld or LD. A prior post-hoc retrospective landmark analysis (Siegel DS, Abstract, Blood 2010) comparing outcomes of early ASCT vs. no early ASCT showed that in patients <65, 65-70, and >70, the survival with early ASCT at 3 years appeared higher, supporting the role of early consolidative ASCT in newly diagnosed patients. This analysis is the long-term follow-up of the aforementioned study. Methods: A post hoc, retrospective landmark analysis was performed evaluating overall survival (OS) by early ASCT vs. no early ASCT overall and within age subgroups. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival distributions and Cox regression for hazard ratio (HR) estimates. The landmark analysis included only patients surviving the first four cycles of therapy. Results: 21% of patients opted for early ASCT (n=90). At baseline (four cycles prior), early ASCT patients were younger (median 57.5y vs 66y), more fit (ECOG PS 0 45% vs 56%) and with less aggressive disease (ISS Stage 3 12% vs 28%). Median treatment duration was 7.6m for no early ASCT patients. The 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5-year survival probability estimates were higher for early ASCT vs. no early ASCT at 99%, 93%, 91%, 85%, and 80% vs. 94%, 84%, 75%, 65%, and 57%. The median OS in the early ASCT vs. no early ASCT was not reached vs. 5.8 years, respectively (Table 1). The survival hazard ratio (HR) for early ASCT was 0.55 [95%CI (0.38-0.80)]. In a further subgroup analysis of patients </= 65, 5-yr survival probability of those who had early ASCT vs. no early ASCT was 79% [95%CI (67-87)] vs. 62% [95%CI (54-69)], respectively. In patients </= 65, median OS in the early ASCT vs. no early ASCT was not reached vs. 7.4 years and the survival HR was 0.74 [95%CI (0.48-1.15)]. For patients >65, 5-yr survival probability of those who had early ASCT vs. no early ASCT was 83% [95%CI (56-94)] vs. 52% [95%CI (45-59)], respectively. In patients >65, median OS in the early ASCT vs. no early ASCT was not reached versus 5.2 years and the survival HR was 0.38 [95%CI (0.17-0.87)]. In all age groups, overall response rate was similar prior to the decision of proceeding with ASCT vs. no early ASCT. In a multivariable model adjusting for baseline prognostic factors, early ASCT retained marginal significance. Conclusions: The landmark analysis demonstrated that patients opting for ASCT after induction Ld/LD had a higher 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5- year survival probability and improvement in median OS regardless of DEX dose density. Results were stronger within the older age cohort and upheld in adjusted models. Limitations include lack of randomization and data on salvage therapy. At a time when lenalidomide and dexamethasone as induction is gaining worldwide acceptance in all age groups, early ASCT is safe and efficacious and should remain a standard of care for newly diagnosed MM even in the era of novel therapies. Table 1. Survival Probabilities (Time from Registration) for all Patients Included in the Landmark Analysis Median 1 year 2-year 3-year 4-year 5-year N Events Median (Yrs)(95% CI) Events Survival Probability(95% CI) Events Survival Probability(95% CI) Events Survival Probability(95% CI) Events Survival Probability(95% CI) Events Survival Probability(95% CI) No Early ASCT All 341 195 5.78(5.11 - 6.59) 22 0.94 (0.90 - 0.96) 53 0.84 (0.80-0.88) 84 0.75 (0.70-0.79) 119 0.65 (0.59-0.69) 144 0.57 (0.51 - 0.62) Early ASCT All 90 34 NR 1 0.99 (0.92 - 1.00) 6 0.93 (0.86 - 0.97) 8 0.91 (0.83 - 0.95) 13 0.85 (0.76 - 0.91) 18 0.80 (0.69 - 0.87) NR = not reached Disclosures Biran: Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Siegel:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Merck: Speakers Bureau. Fonseca:Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Applied Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx/Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Binding Site: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Vesole:Idera Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Speakers Bureau. Williams:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Abonour:Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Abstract 905 Introduction: Though dose-intensive strategies using chemoimmunotherapy have significantly improved mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) outcomes with prolonged progression-free survival (PFS), most patients still relapse over time. In the relapsed setting, MCL patients often develop chemoresistance and have a poor overall prognosis. The immunomodulatory agent lenalidomide has demonstrated tumoricidal and antiproliferative effects in MCL and clinical activity and safety in multiple phase II studies in aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The objective of the MCL-001 “EMERGE” study was to examine the safety and efficacy of single-agent lenalidomide in subjects with MCL who relapsed or were refractory to bortezomib. Methods: This phase II, multicenter, single-arm, open-label study examined single-agent lenalidomide administered at 25 mg/d PO on days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or voluntary withdrawal. The subjects were required to have had prior treatment with rituximab, cyclophosphamide and anthracycline (or mitoxantrone), and to have relapsed or progressed (<12 months) after or were refractory to bortezomib. The primary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR); secondary endpoints included complete response (CR), PFS, time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS) and safety. Efficacy data were measured by investigators and an independent central review committee according to modified International Working Group criteria and analyzed by SAS. Results: 134 subjects with relapsed or refractory MCL who were heavily pretreated (no limitation in number of prior therapies) were enrolled. The median age was 67 y (range, 43–83), two-thirds of them being 65 y or older and 93% with advanced stage disease (stage III-IV). The median number of prior therapies was 4 (range, 2– 10) with 78% of subjects having received ≥ 3 prior lines of treatment. The ORR to single-agent lenalidomide was 28% (CR/CRu 8%; Table 1) by independent central review, with a median DOR of 16.6 mo (95% CI, 7.7–26.7; Figure 1). The ORR was 32% (CR/CRu 16%) by investigator assessment, with a median DOR of 18.5 mo. Median time to response (central review) was 2.2 mo (3.7 mo to achieve CR). The median PFS was 4.0 mo (95% CI, 3.6–5.6); median OS was 19.0 mo (95% CI, 12.5–23.9). Subjects received an average dose of 20 mg/d of lenalidomide. Lenalidomide was dose reduced in 38% of subjects; treatment discontinuation due to an adverse event (AE; primarily myelosuppression) was reported in 19% of subjects. The most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (43%), thrombocytopenia (28%), anemia (11%), pneumonia (8%) and fatigue (7%). Other AEs (any grade) included tumor flare reaction (13 subjects, 10%), deep vein thrombosis (5 subjects, 4%), pulmonary embolism (3 subjects, 2%) and invasive second primary malignancies (3 subjects, 2%). Conclusions: The EMERGE study demonstrated rapid and durable efficacy of lenalidomide in MCL subjects who relapsed or progressed after or were refractory to bortezomib. These results in heavily pretreated MCL subjects (median of 4 prior treatments), and with an expected toxicity profile support single-agent lenalidomide in subjects with relapsed or refractory MCL after bortezomib. Disclosures: Goy: Pfizer: Advisory board member, Advisory board member Other; Seattle Genetics: Advisory board member Other; J&J: Advisory board member, Advisory board member Other; Pharmacyclics: Advisory board member, Advisory board member Other; Millenium: Advisory board member, Advisory board member Other, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Advisory board member Other. Off Label Use: This is a phase 2 clinical study of safety and efficacy for lenalidomide in patients with MCL. Sinha:Celgene: Research Funding. Williams:Celgene: Clincial Trial Research Support, Advisory Boards, Data Safety Committee Member, Consultant Other, Consultancy. Drach:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Research Funding. Ramchandren:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau. Herbrecht:Pfizer: Advisory board member Other. Zhang:Celgene: Employment. Cicero:Celgene: Employment. Fu:Celgene: Employment. Witzig:Celgene : Research Funding.

INTRODUCTION: It is becoming clear that eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) activity cannot be measured by eosinophils alone, and that a more complete assessment is needed. The EoE Histology Scoring System (EoE HSS) measures the severity (grade) and extent (stage) of 8 histopathologic features in EoE: eosinophilic inflammation (EI); basal zone hyperplasia (BZH); eosinophilic abscess (EA); eosinophilic surface layering (SL); dilated intercellular spaces (DIS); surface epithelial alteration (SEA); dyskeratotic epithelial cells (DEC); and lamina propria fibrosis (LPF). We aimed to assess EoE histology at baseline using the EoE HSS, and to compare correlations between this and endoscopic and symptom outcomes. METHODS: This study analyzed baseline data from a 12-week, phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of budesonide oral suspension in patients with EoE (MPI 101-06; NCT01642212). Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were aged 11–40 years and had EoE with dysphagia. Esophageal biopsies from patients were examined, and mean EoE HSS total score ratios and mean individual feature scores were calculated at baseline for all patients (irrespective of treatment allocation). A correlation analysis was then performed to compare these scores with Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) scores and those from the EoE Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS) system at baseline. RESULTS: In total, 87 patients were included for analysis. At baseline, mean (standard deviation) EoE HSS grade and stage total score ratios for all patients were 0.5 (0.2) and 0.4 (0.1), respectively. For individual EoE HSS features, a summary of mean grade and stage scores at baseline is shown in Table 1; the most severe features for grade and stage were EI, BZH, DIS and LPF. At baseline, mean EoE HSS grade and stage total score ratios did not correlate with mean DSQ score, but did correlate significantly with mean EREFS score (grade: R = 0.3166; P = 0.0028; stage: R = 0.3344; P = 0.0015; Table 2). Similarly, mean scores for individual EoE HSS features did not correlate with mean DSQ score at baseline, but did correlate with mean EREFS score for 4 and 3 of the 8 features for grade and stage scores, respectively (Table 2). CONCLUSION: The most severe EoE HSS features at baseline for grade and stage were EI, BZH, DIS and LPF. At baseline, there were significant correlations between the EoE HSS and endoscopic severity, but not dysphagia. This suggests that the EoE HSS could become an essential and independent tool to measure EoE activity.

INTRODUCTION: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune-mediated disease for which there is an unmet clinical need for new therapies. The safety and efficacy of budesonide oral suspension (BOS) for the treatment of EoE has been demonstrated in a previous phase 2 study. The current phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of BOS in a large cohort of patients with EoE. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (SHP621-301; NCT02605837) investigated the safety and efficacy of BOS in patients (11–55 years) with EoE and dysphagia. Patients were randomized 2:1 to 2.0 mg BOS or placebo twice daily (b.i.d.) for 12 weeks (Figure 1). Co-primary endpoints were histologic (peak eosinophil count ≤6 eosinophils/high-powered field [eos/hpf]) and dysphagia symptom (≥30% decrease in symptoms as measured by the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire [DSQ]) responses after 12 weeks of therapy. Secondary endpoints included change in DSQ score and change in EoE Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS) from baseline to final treatment period. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 322 patients were randomized (BOS, n = 215; placebo, n = 107), of whom 318 patients received at least one dose of double-blind therapy (BOS, n = 213; placebo, n = 105) (Table 1). The primary outcomes were achieved, with significantly more histologic and symptom responders in the BOS-treated than the placebo-treated group (53.1% vs 1.0%, P < 0.001; 52.6% vs 39.1%, P = 0.024, respectively; Figure 2). Improvements in mean DSQ score from baseline to week 12 were significantly greater in the BOS group (n = 197) than the placebo group (n = 89) (−13.0 vs −9.1; P = 0.015). Similarly, improvements in mean EREFS scores were significantly greater with BOS (n = 202) than placebo (n = 93) (−4.0 vs −2.2; P < 0.001). In total, 61.0% of patients reported a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) (BOS, 61.0%; placebo, 61.0%). Only 2.5% of patients experienced a TEAE leading to dose discontinuation (BOS, 1.4%; placebo, 4.8%). Few patients had severe or serious TEAEs on BOS or placebo. No life-threatening TEAEs were reported. CONCLUSION: This phase 3 trial demonstrated the efficacy of BOS as induction therapy for EoE. BOS resulted in significant improvements in histologic, symptomatic and endoscopic endpoints compared with placebo. The majority of TEAEs were mild to moderate and comparable between placebo and BOS. A double-blind, placebo-controlled maintenance study (SHP621-302) is ongoing.

Budesonide oral suspension (BOS) is a novel topical corticosteroid, which has been shown to improve symptoms and endoscopic appearance, and reduce peak eosinophil counts in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). This trial evaluated the effect of BOS or placebo on the severity (grade) and extent (stage) of 8 histopathologic features observed in EoE, using the validated eosinophilic esophagitis histologic scoring system (EoE HSS). Patients with EoE aged 11 to 40 years with dysphagia were randomized to receive either BOS (2.0 mg twice daily) or placebo for 12 weeks. Mean (SD) EoE HSS grade and stage total scores at baseline for placebo and BOS groups were: grade, 0.42 (0.16) and 0.49 (0.14), respectively; stage: 0.38 (0.14) and 0.46 (0.11), respectively. These scores significantly decreased (improved) from baseline for patients receiving BOS versus placebo (grade: least squares mean change [SE]: placebo vs. BOS, −0.04 [0.03] vs. −0.24 [0.02]; P<0.0001; stage: −0.01 [0.02] vs. −0.19 [0.02]; P<0.0001). EoE HSS total scores improved for 6 of the 8 and 5 of the 8 histopathologic features for grade and stage, respectively, versus placebo. Change in EoE HSS total scores correlated moderately but significantly with change in endoscopic severity (endoscopic reference score; grade: R=0.5349; stage: R=0.5416; both P<0.0001). Change in EoE HSS stage total score correlated weakly with change in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire scores (grade: R=0.1925; P=0.0740; stage: R=0.2135; P=0.0471). These data demonstrate that the EoE HSS is a valuable endpoint of treatment response in randomized clinical trials and should be considered for future trials for EoE.

Abstract STUDY QUESTION What is the safety and efficacy profile during long-term (12–24 months) uninterrupted treatment with the selective progesterone receptor modulator asoprisnil, 10 and 25 mg in women with heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) associated with uterine fibroids? SUMMARY ANSWER Uninterrupted treatment with asoprisnil should be avoided due to endometrial safety concerns and unknown potential long-term consequences. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Asoprisnil was well tolerated in shorter-term studies and effectively suppressed HMB and reduced fibroid volume. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Women with uterine fibroids who had previously received placebo (n = 87) or asoprisnil 10 mg (n = 221) or 25 mg (n = 215) for 12 months in two double-blind studies entered this randomized uncontrolled extension study and received up to 12 additional months of treatment followed by 6 months of post-treatment follow-up. Women who previously received placebo were re-randomized to either asoprisnil 10 or 25 mg for the extension study. This report focuses on the 436 women who received asoprisnil in the double-blind studies and this extension study. Results for women who previously received placebo in the double-blind studies are not described. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Women ≥18 years of age who completed a 12-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, had estradiol levels indicating that they were not menopausal and had no endometrial hyperplasia or other significant endometrial pathology were eligible. The safety endpoints were focused on endometrial assessments. The composite primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of women who demonstrated a response to treatment by meeting all three of the following criteria at the final month for participants who prematurely discontinued or at month 12 for those who completed the study: a reduction from initial baseline to final visit of ≥50% in the menstrual pictogram score, hemoglobin concentration ≥11 g/dl or an increase of ≥1 g/dl from initial baseline at the final visit, and no surgical or invasive intervention for uterine fibroids. Other efficacy endpoints included rates for amenorrhea and suppression of bleeding, changes in fibroid and uterine volume and changes in hematologic parameters. No statistical tests were planned or performed for this uncontrolled study. MAIN RESULTS AND ROLE OF CHANCE Imaging studies revealed a progressive increase in endometrial thickness and cystic changes that frequently prompted invasive diagnostic procedures. Endometrial biopsy results were consistent with antiproliferative effects of asoprisnil. Two cases of endometrial cancer were diagnosed. At the final month of this extension study (total duration of uninterrupted treatment up to 24 months), the primary efficacy endpoint was achieved in 86 and 92% of women in the asoprisnil 10- and 25-mg groups, respectively. During each month of treatment, amenorrhea was observed in the majority of women (up to 77 and 94% at 10 and 25 mg, respectively). There was a progressive, dose-dependent decrease in the volume of the primary fibroid with asoprisnil 10 and 25 mg (−55.7 and −75.2% median decrease, respectively, from baseline [i.e. the beginning of the placebo-controlled study] to month 12 [cumulative months 12–24] of this extension study). These effects were associated with improvements in quality of life measures. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION This study was uncontrolled, which limits the interpretation of safety and efficacy findings. The study also had multiple protocol amendments with the addition of diagnostic procedures and, because no active comparator was included, the potential place of asoprisnil in comparison to therapies such as GnRH agonists and surgery cannot be determined. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Long-term, uninterrupted treatment with asoprisnil leads to prominent cystic endometrial changes that are consistent with the ‘late progesterone receptor modulator’ effects, which prompted invasive diagnostic procedures, although treatment efficacy is maintained. Although endometrial cancers were uncommon during both treatment and follow-up, these findings raise concerns regarding endometrial safety during uninterrupted long-term treatment with asoprisnil. This study shows that uninterrupted treatment with asoprisnil should be avoided due to safety concerns and unknown potential long-term consequences. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) AbbVie Inc. (prior sponsor, TAP Pharmaceutical Products Inc.) sponsored the study and contributed to the design and conduct of the study, data management, data analysis, interpretation of the data and the preparation and approval of the manuscript. Financial support for medical writing and editorial assistance was provided by AbbVie Inc. M. P. Diamond received research funding for the conduct of the study paid to the institution and is a consultant to AbbVie. He is a stockholder and board and director member of Advanced Reproductive Care. He has also received funding for study conduct paid to the institution for Bayer and ObsEva. E. A. Stewart participated as a site investigator in the phase 2 study of asoprisnil and served as a consultant to TAP Pharmaceuticals during the time of design and conduct of the studies while on the faculty of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA. In the last 3 years, she has received support from National Institutes of Health grants HD063312, HS023418 and HD074711. She has served as a consultant for AbbVie Inc., Allergan, Bayer HealthCare AG and Myovant for consulting related to uterine leiomyoma and to Welltwigs for consulting related to infertility. She has received royalties from UpToDate and the Med Learning Group. A.R.W. Williams has acted as a consultant for TAP Pharmaceutical Products Inc. and Repros Therapeutics Inc. He has current consultancies with PregLem SA, Gedeon Richter, HRA Pharma and Bayer. B.R. Carr has served as consultant and received research funding from AbbVie Inc. and Synteract (Medicines360). E.R. Myers has served as consultant for AbbVie Inc., Allergan and Bayer. R.A. Feldman received compensation for serving as a principal investigator and participating in the conduct of the trial. W. Elger was a co-inventor of several patents related to asoprisnil. C. Mattia-Goldberg is a former employee of AbbVie Inc. and owns AbbVie stock or stock options. B.M. Schwefel and K. Chwalisz are employees of AbbVie Inc. and own AbbVie stock or stock options. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT00156195 at clinicaltrials.gov.

AimsChondroblastomas (CB) are rare bone tumours that typically arise in the epiphysis/apophysis of long bones in skeletally immature patients. We explore the clinicopathological features of CB presenting in adults.Methods and resultsCB in patients ≥20 years of age were retrieved from our institutional archives. Thirty‐nine CB were identified (29 male/10 female; aged 20–54 years). Twenty (51%) cases occurred in long tubular bones, 10 (26%) in small bones of the feet, five (13%) in flat bones and four (10%) in the patella. All cases showed classic cytological features of CB, and chondroid matrix was universally present. Calcification was identified in 10 cases (26%), including various combinations of serpiginous (n = 7), punctate (n = 6), classic chicken‐wire (n = 4) and psammomatous (n = 2) patterns. Haemosiderin (n = 19), woven bone (n = 13), secondary aneurysmal bone cyst formation (n = 8), foamy macrophages (n = 4), hyalinised vascular spaces (n = 2) and cholesterol clefts (n = 2) were noted. Follow‐up information (n = 32, 1–452 months) revealed local recurrence in three patients, all >40 years of age with flat bone origin, one of which developed pulmonary metastases 132 months after initial diagnosis.ConclusionsCB in patients >20 years of age more frequently involves the short bones of the hands/feet and flat bones compared to those arising in their younger counterparts. A subset may harbour extensive serpiginous or psammomatous calcification rather than the classic chicken‐wire pattern. Although the overall local recurrence rate in adulthood is approximately 10%, all three patients with recurrent disease had tumours involving flat bones, suggesting that tumours arising in these sites may behave more aggressively.