Citations

Despite significant improvements in survival of patients with multiple myeloma (MM), outcomes remain heterogeneous, and a significant proportion of patients experience suboptimal outcomes. Importantly, traditional prognostic factors based on data from patients treated with older therapies no longer capture prognosis accurately in the contemporary era of novel triplet or quadruplet therapies. Therefore, risk stratification requires refinement in the context of available and investigational treatment options in routine practice and clinical trials, respectively. The current identification of high-risk MM (HRMM) in routine practice is based on the Revised International Staging System, which stratifies patients using a combination of widely available serum biomarkers and chromosomal abnormalities assessed via fluorescence in situ hybridization. In recent years, a substantial body of evidence concerning additional clinical, biological, and molecular/genomic prognostic factors has accumulated, along with new MM risk stratification tools and consensus reports. The International Myeloma Society, along with the International Myeloma Working Group, convened an Expert Panel with the primary aim of revisiting the definition of HRMM and formulating a practical and data-driven consensus definition, based on new evidence from molecular/genomic assays, updated clinical data, and contemporary risk stratification concepts. The Panel proposes the following Consensus Genomic Staging (CGS) of HRMM which relies upon the presence of at least one of these abnormalities: (1) del(17p), with a cutoff of >20% clonal fraction, and/or TP53 mutation; (2) an IgH translocation including t(4;14), t(14;16), or t(14;20) along with 1q+ and/or del(1p32); (3) monoallelic del(1p32) along with 1q+ or biallelic del(1p32); or (4) β2 microglobulin ≥5.5 mg/L with normal creatinine (<1.2 mg/dL).

Abstract Most myelofibrosis (MF) drug approvals by Health Authorities are based on 1 or 2 outcome measures such as spleen volume reduction and/or improved quality-of-life. This 1–2 dimensional approach fails to capture the clinical complexity of MF. A European LeukemiaNet (ELN) taskforce developed a composite endpoint which allows multiple outcomes to be simultaneously measured. The panel used the Desirability-Of-Outcome-Ranking (DOOR) method to assign 25 outcomes into 4 quartiles based on a multi-dimensional desirability score and build a 5-layer composite outcome named Desirability-of-Myelofibrosis-Outcomes (DEMYO). Outcome operational definitions were tested by Delphi consensus and correlations with survival validated by a literature review. The outcomes assigned to the first two quartiles were negatively correlated with leukemia-free survival and survival. DEMYO comprehensively captures relevant MF clinical features and meaningful endpoints. Despite DEMYO requires validation based on available trial data, it is expected to improve the quality of Health Authority approvals for new drugs for MF.

This manuscript summarizes the first part of the proceedings of the 2023 Dublin ISUP Consensus Conference encompassing the best practice recommendations on the pathology of neoplasms of urachal origin. The rationale for convening this consensus conference was the lack of structured and consented histopathologic recommendations in these rare tumors. Consensus among the meeting participants (n=80) was reached on the following statements: (1) combination of gross, histologic, clinical and imaging findings with exclusion of secondary tumor metastasis are to be used in the diagnosis of urachal carcinoma; (2) the 2022 World Health Organization (WHO) separate criteria for the diagnosis of urachal adenocarcinoma and for nonglandular carcinoma should be applied; (3) specific elements are to be evaluated and recorded in the gross examination of resection specimens containing urachal tumors; (4) sampling considerations for resection specimens containing urachal tumors are advised; (5) participants are against using 5% or 10% cutoff for the extent of intraepithelial carcinoma in urachal mucinous cystic tumor of low malignant potential; (6) use of immunohistochemical markers for the differential diagnosis of urachal adenocarcinomas in transurethral resection (TUR) specimen is considered optional; (7) similar tumor classificatory (nosology) rules for carcinomas arising from bladder mucosa (eg, urothelial carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and neuroendocrine carcinoma) should be applied for nonglandular urachal carcinomas; (8) a new staging approach other than the previously proposed systems should be designed for urachal carcinoma; (9) a system modifying the current Tumor-Node-Metastasis (TNM)/American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for urinary bladder cancer is considered appropriate for a study in urachal carcinoma; and (10) several histologic elements are to be reported when diagnosing urachal carcinoma in TUR and resection specimens. This report from the Dublin ISUP consensus conference will serve as a practice recommendation for pathologists and as a guide for future standardized reporting protocols and research regarding urachal tumors. In addition, an international database for urachal cancers under the guidance of ISUP is being planned to be established to address pertinent issues in the pathology of urachal cancers.

LBA4005 Background: To date, no phase 3 clinical trial has demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit in patients with locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LA-PAC). TTFields are electric fields that disrupt cancer cell division. TTFields therapy is approved for glioblastoma, pleural mesothelioma, and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. A phase 2 trial in PAC demonstrated the safety and preliminary efficacy of TTFields therapy with gemcitabine with or without nab-paclitaxel. We report final data from PANOVA-3 (NCT03377491), the largest global, phase 3, randomized, open-label trial in LA-PAC to date. Methods: Adult patients with newly diagnosed unresectable LA-PAC were randomized 1:1 to receive TTFields therapy (150 kHz) with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (GnP) or GnP. The primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), local PFS, objective response rate (ORR), and pain-free survival. Distant PFS (metastases beyond the pancreas and regional lymph nodes) was assessed post hoc. Survival data were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method and a log-rank test. Results: 571 patients were randomized. Baseline characteristics were generally well balanced between the study arms. OS was significantly longer with TTFields/GnP than with GnP (median 16.2 [95% CI: 15.0, 18.0] vs 14.2 months [95% CI: 12.8, 15.4]; HR 0.82 [95% CI: 0.68, 0.99], p=0.039). One-year survival rate was also significantly improved with TTFields/GnP vs GnP (68.1% [95% CI: 62.0-73.5] vs 60.2% [95% CI: 54.2-65.7], p=0.029). There was no significant difference in PFS or local PFS between arms. Pain-free survival was significantly longer with TTFields/GnP vs GnP (median 15.2 [95% CI: 10.3, 22.8] vs 9.1 months [95% CI: 7.4, 12.7]; HR 0.74 [95% CI: 0.56, 0.97], p=0.027). Post-hoc analysis showed significant distant PFS benefit (median 13.9 [95% CI: 12.2, 16.8] vs 11.5 months [95% CI: 10.4, 12.9], HR 0.74 [95% CI: 0.57, 0.96], p=0.022) with TTFields/GnP vs GnP. ORR was similar between arms (36.1% [95% CI: 30.0, 42.4] vs 30.0% [95% CI: 24.3, 36.2], p=0.094). 97.8% and 98.9% of patients who received TTFields/GnP and GnP, respectively, had adverse events (AEs) and 88.6% and 84.3% had grade ≥3 AEs. The most frequent grade ≥3 AEs were neutropenia (47.8% and 47.6%) and anemia (21.9% and 22.3). 81% of patients receiving TTFields/GnP had device-related AEs, mostly grade 1/2 skin AEs, e.g., dermatitis (27.7%), rash (17.5%), and pruritus (15.0%); grade 3 and grade 4 device-related AEs occurred in 9.1% and 0.4% of patients, respectively. Conclusions: PANOVA-3 is the largest phase 3 trial exclusively performed in patients with LA-PAC and the first to show a statistically significant OS benefit. With no additive systemic toxicity and a statistically significant pain-free survival benefit, TTFields therapy is a potential new standard treatment for LA-PAC. Clinical trial information: NCT03377491 .

LBA3500 Background: BREAKWATER (NCT04607421) is an open-label, global, randomized, phase 3 study evaluating first-line (1L) encorafenib + cetuximab (EC) ± chemotherapy (chemo) vs standard of care (SOC; chemo ± bevacizumab) in BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The study previously met one of its dual primary endpoints (EPs) demonstrating clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in confirmed objective response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review (BICR) in the ORR subset. These results were the basis for the FDA accelerated approval of EC+mFOLFOX6 for BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC, including in the 1L, under Project Frontrunner. Here, we report the primary analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) by BICR, updated interim analysis of OS, updated safety, and other analyses. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) with untreated BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC were randomized 1:1:1 to receive EC, EC+mFOLFOX6, or SOC; EC arm enrollment was closed after a protocol amendment. Dual primary EPs: ORR and PFS by BICR (EC+mFOLFOX6 vs SOC); key secondary EP: OS (EC+mFOLFOX6 vs SOC). Results: 637 pts were randomized to EC, EC+mFOLFOX6, or SOC. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were generally balanced between arms. EC+mFOLFOX6 (data cutoff: Jan 6, 2025) demonstrated a clinically meaningful and statistically significant PFS improvement vs SOC, meeting the other dual primary EP; HR=0.53 (95% CI 0.407, 0.677; P<0.0001); median PFS 12.8 vs 7.1 mo. OS was clinically meaningful and statistically significant vs SOC; HR=0.49 (95% CI 0.375, 0.632; P<0.0001); median OS 30.3 vs 15.1 mo. Median PFS and OS in the EC arm were 6.8 and 19.5 mo. These data and response data for all randomized pts are shown in the table. Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 30%, 46%, and 39% of pts in the safety analysis set. Safety was consistent with that known for each agent. Conclusions: BREAKWATER demonstrated clinically meaningful and statistically significant PFS and OS improvements with EC+mFOLFOX6 vs SOC and manageable toxicities. EC+mFOLFOX6 is potentially practice changing as the new SOC. Clinical trial information: NCT04607421 . ECn=158 EC+mFOLFOX6n=236 SOCn=243 EC+mFOLFOX6vs SOCHR (95% CI)P-value a Median PFS b , mo (95% CI) 6.8(5.7, 8.3) 12.8(11.2, 15.9) 7.1(6.8, 8.5) 0.53 (0.407, 0.677) <0.0001 Median OS, mo (95% CI) 19.5(17.6, 22.5) 30.3(21.7, NE) 15.1(13.7, 17.7) 0.49 (0.375, 0.632)<0.0001 ORR, b % (95% CI) 45.6(38.0, 53.3) 65.7(59.4, 71.4) 37.4(31.6, 43.7) Median DOR b , mo (95% CI) c 7.0 (4.2, 11.6) 13.9 (10.9, 18.5) 10.8 (7.6, 13.4) DOR b ≥6 mo, n (%) c 29 (40.3) 110 (71.0) 38 (41.8) DOR b ≥12 mo, n (%) c 15 (20.8) 54 (34.8) 16 (17.6) Median time to response, b wk (range) c 6.6(4.3-86.4) 7.0(5.1-103.6) 7.3 (5.4-48.0) a 1-sided stratified log rank test. b By BICR. c Responders: n=72, n=155, and n=91. DOR, duration of response.

Objectives To estimate the proportion and correlates of self-reported financial difficulty among patients with multiple myeloma (MM) or chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL). Setting Sixty-six US community and minority oncology practices affiliated with the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Programme (NCORP). Participants A total of 521 patients (=18 years) with MM or CLL consented and 416 responded to a survey (completion rate=79.8%). Respondents had a MM diagnosis (74.0%), an associate degree or higher (53.4%), were White (89.2%), insured (100%) and treated with clinician-administered drugs (68.0%). Study design Observational, theoretical model and protocol-based patient survey administered between May 2019 and June 2020. Primary and secondary outcome measures Financial difficulty was assessed using a single-item measure, the EORTC QLQC30: Has your physical condition or medical treatment caused you financial difficulties in the past year? and using an any-or-none composite measure of 22 items assessing financial difficulty, worries and the use of cost-coping strategies. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed the association of financial difficulty with diagnosis, socioeconomic and treatment characteristics. Results About 16.8% reported experiencing financial difficulty using the single-item measure and 60.3% using the composite measure. Most frequently endorsed items in the composite measure were financial worry about having to pay large medical bills related to cancer and difficulty paying medical bills. Financial difficulty using the single-item measure was associated with having MM vs CLL (adjusted OR (aOR), 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.84; p=0.02), having insurance other than Medicare (aOR, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.37 to 4.66; p=0.003), being non-White (aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.04 to 4.72; p=0.04) and having a high school education or below (aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.64; p=0.001). Financial difficulty using the composite measure was associated with having a high school education or below (aOR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.94; p=0.03). Conclusions US patients with MM and CLL report financial difficulty, especially those with low socio-economic status. Interventions are needed to mitigate patients financial difficulty. Trial registration number NCT03870633 .

PURPOSE Tumor treating fields (TTFields) use alternating electric fields to disrupt cancer cell proliferation. Feasibility of TTFields therapy with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel was previously demonstrated in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. PANOVA-3 was designed to confirm safety and efficacy of TTFields in patients with unresectable locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LA-PAC). METHODS In this global phase III trial, 571 patients with newly diagnosed LA-PAC were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m 2 and nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m 2 by intravenous infusion once a day on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle with or without TTFields. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), local PFS, pain-free survival, and overall response rate (ORR). Distant PFS was analyzed post hoc. RESULTS OS was significantly prolonged using TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 16.2 months [95% CI, 15.0 to 18.0] v 14.2 months [95% CI, 12.8 to 15.4]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.68 to 0.99]; P = .039). PFS, local PFS, and ORR were not improved. Pain-free survival was significantly prolonged with TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 15.2 months [95% CI, 10.3 to 22.8] v 9.1 months [95% CI, 7.4 to 12.7]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56 to 0.97]; P = .027), as was distant PFS (median, 13.9 months [95% CI, 12.2 to 16.8] v 11.5 months [95% CI, 10.4 to 12.9]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.96]; P = .022). Device-related skin adverse events (AEs) were experienced by 76.3% of patients. Most device-related skin AEs were mild to moderate, with 7.7% of patients reporting a grade 3 AE. CONCLUSION This study demonstrated significant OS, pain-free survival, and distant PFS benefits for TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in patients with unresectable LA-PAC, with no additive systemic toxicity.

PURPOSE Continued improvement in outcomes is needed for advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). Methods Alliance A091802 is a randomized phase II trial of avelumab (800 mg IV once every 2 weeks) plus cetuximab (500 mg/m 2 IV once every 2 weeks) versus avelumab alone once every 2 weeks for up to 2 years. Cetuximab was given for 1 year in the avelumab + cetuximab arm. Crossover at progression to avelumab + cetuximab was allowed. Randomization was 1:1, stratified by PD-L1 and HIV status. Patients had distant metastatic or unresectable locally advanced cSCC, were anti–PD-1/PD-L1 monoclonal antibody–naive, had no previous cetuximab in the advanced setting, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and could be HIV+ (CD4 >200, viral load <200). Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, immunosuppression, or active autoimmune diseases were excluded. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS; null hypothesis: median = 12 months v alternative hypothesis: 21 months or a 75% improvement, power of 80% with one-sided alpha .2, n = 57, 37 PFS events required). Secondary end points were overall survival, objective response rates (ORRs), clinical benefit rate, and toxicity. RESULTS Sixty patients were enrolled; 57 patients were evaluable. The median age was 72 years, all were HIV–; 75.4% was PD-L1+, 84.2% had head/neck origin, 47.4% had distant metastasis, and there were no differences in baseline characteristics by arm. Avelumab + cetuximab significantly improved PFS versus avelumab (median, 11.1 [7.6-not reached (NR)] v 3.0 months [2.7-13.6] hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.23 to 0.97], P = .018). Avelumab patients who crossed over (n = 9) to combination had a median PFS after crossover of 11.3 months (5.8-NR). The confirmed ORR was 27.6% with avelumab + cetuximab and 21.4% with avelumab. Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 48.3% and 21.5% of patients with avelumab + cetuximab (most common: rash [20.7%], infusion reaction [20.7%]) and avelumab, respectively. CONCLUSION Avelumab + cetuximab significantly improved PFS versus avelumab alone in patients with advanced cSCC. Alliance A091802 supports a larger confirmatory study with the combination of cetuximab and PD-1:PD-(L)1 blockade.