Citations

8011 Background: Maintenance therapy is generally not used in treatment of DLBCL. However, older pts are a unique group in which to study this approach, due to poorer outcome. Methods: As part of intergroup trial E4494/C9793, 415 pts >= 60 years (yr) of age with DLBCL who responded to induction therapy with CHOP or R-CHOP were randomized to MR (rituximab, 375 mg/m2 weekly {wk} X 4 every 6 months for 2 yr) starting 4 wk after the last chemotherapy (n=207) or observation (OBS, n=208) in a prospective 2 × 2 randomized trial design (J Clin Oncol 2006;24:3121). Impact of MR on failure-free survival (FFS) was the primary objective, and impact on time to failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) were secondary objectives. All p-values are two-sided. Results: Results are presented for 352 centrally reviewed evaluable pts, with a median follow-up after maintenance randomization of 5.5 yr. All results were similar for the intent-to-treat population. Baseline characteristics and response to induction therapy are balanced among the CHOP/R-CHOP pts. At 6 yr, FFS was 46% for those pt who received MR and 36% for the OBS cohort (p=0.005, hazard rate {HR} 0.64); 6-yr OS was 62% for MR and 64% for OBS (p=0.83, HR 0.96). Outcome was also examined in the four treatment subgroups. The 6-yr FFS were: CHOP+MR 44%, CHOP+OBS 35%, R-CHOP+MR 47%, and R- CHOP+OBS 40%. No differences in 6-yr OS were observed according to maintenance randomization following CHOP (57% MR vs 55% OBS) or R-CHOP (67% MR and 72% OBS). Median TTF after maintenance randomization following CHOP+MR was 5.2 yr vs 1.6 yr for CHOP-OBS (p=0.0004), and following R-CHOP+MR was 5.6 yr vs 5.4 yr with R-CHOP-OBS (p=0.50). Proportionately more of the treatment failures occurred within 2 yr after CHOP+OBS (85%) compared to CHOP+MR (61%), p=0.01. In contrast, the proportion of failures within 2 yr was similar for R- CHOP+OBS (47%) and R-CHOP+MR (53%), p=NS. Conclusions: MR after CHOP, but not after R-CHOP, significantly prolongs TTF, but fails to prolong OS, possibly due to a delayed pattern of relapse and/or the efficacy of rituximab in the salvage setting. As 6-yr FFS declined to <50% among R-CHOP responders, with or without MR, there is a need for more effective treatment strategies in older DLBCL pts. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

8004 Background: To determine optimal induction and the role of maintenance, the E1496 study randomized patients (pts) to induction CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone) versus CF (cyclophosphamide 1 G/m2 d1, fludarabine 20 mg/m2 d1–5 every 28 d) for 2 cycles beyond best response (maximum 8). Responding and stable pts were secondarily randomized to MR (375 mg/m2 weekly × 4 every 6 months for 2 years [yr]) or observation (OBS). Methods: Due to early deaths the CF arm was closed to accrual with 115 pts randomized to CF and 119 pts to CVP (thereafter all pts were assigned to CVP prior to maintenance randomization). The results presented here compare the outcome of CF patients with the subset of E1496 pts randomized to CVP (CVPR). Results: Median follow-up on pts randomized to induction is 6.5 yr. Toxic deaths occurred in 8 (7%) CF pts during induction and 4 additional deaths (1 OBS, 3 MR) occurred among the 69 (6%) CF pts randomized to MR or OBS. Causes of death were infection (9), liver failure (2), CNS gliosis (1). CF pts received a median of 5 cycles compared to 7 cycles for CVPR. The CR rate was 51% vs 22% (p=0.00001) and the PR rate was 35% vs 55% for CF vs. CVPR, respectively. Four-yr PFS for CF vs. CVPR was 49% vs 45% (p=0.19) and OS was 66% vs. 81% (p=0.12), respectively. Of 45 CF deaths, 23 (51%) occurred without lymphoma progression compared to 5 (13%) of 38 CVPR deaths (p=0.0004). More than 90% of CF patients randomized to maintenance achieved protocol-defined minimal residual disease compared with 64% CVPR pts. Maintenance therapy had no impact on 2 yr PFS for the 67 evaluable randomized CF pts, which was 74% for MR vs. 73% for OBS (p=0.19). In contrast, 2 yr PFS was 73% for MR and 42% for OBS in randomized CVPR pts (p=0.004). Survival at 2 yr for MR vs OBS was: CF 79% vs 91% (p=0.19) compared with CVP 98% vs 93% (p=0.21). Conclusions: Induction with CF results in higher CR and miminal residual disease rates than CVP. However, gains in remission quality with CF (in the dose and schedule used here) were offset by early and late deaths in the absence of progressive lymphoma. In E1496, the benefit of MR was influenced by the induction chemotherapy. [Table: see text]

AbstractA recent meeting was held on March 22, 2019, among the FDA, clinical scientists, pharmaceutical and biotech companies, clinical trials cooperative groups, and patient advocacy groups to discuss challenges and potential solutions for increasing development of therapeutics for central nervous system metastases. A key issue identified at this meeting was the need for consistent tumor measurement for reliable tumor response assessment, including the first step of standardized image acquisition with an MRI protocol that could be implemented in multicenter studies aimed at testing new therapeutics. This document builds upon previous consensus recommendations for a standardized brain tumor imaging protocol (BTIP) in high-grade gliomas and defines a protocol for brain metastases (BTIP-BM) that addresses unique challenges associated with assessment of CNS metastases. The “minimum standard” recommended pulse sequences include: (i) parameter matched pre- and post-contrast inversion recovery (IR)–prepared, isotropic 3D T1-weighted gradient echo (IR-GRE); (ii) axial 2D T2-weighted turbo spin echo acquired after injection of gadolinium-based contrast agent and before post-contrast 3D T1-weighted images; (iii) axial 2D or 3D T2-weighted fluid attenuated inversion recovery; (iv) axial 2D, 3-directional diffusion-weighted images; and (v) post-contrast 2D T1-weighted spin echo images for increased lesion conspicuity. Recommended sequence parameters are provided for both 1.5T and 3T MR systems. An “ideal” protocol is also provided, which replaces IR-GRE with 3D TSE T1-weighted imaging pre- and post-gadolinium, and is best performed at 3T, for which dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion is included. Recommended perfusion parameters are given.

AbstractBuilding on an initiative to enhance clinical trial participation involving the Society for Neuro-Oncology, the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Working Group, patient advocacy groups, clinical trial cooperative groups, and other partners, we evaluate the impact of eligibility criteria and trial conduct on neuro-oncology clinical trial participation. Clinical trials often carry forward eligibility criteria from prior studies that may be overly restrictive and unnecessary and needlessly limit patient accrual. Inclusion and exclusion criteria should be evaluated based on the goals and design of the study and whether they impact patient safety and/or treatment efficacy. In addition, we evaluate clinical trial conduct as a barrier to accrual and discuss strategies to minimize such barriers for neuro-oncology trials.

Background and Aims Hepatocytes play a central role in storage and utilization of fat by the liver. Selective breakdown of lipid droplets (LDs) by autophagy (also called lipophagy) is a key process utilized to catabolize these lipids as an energy source. How the autophagic machinery is selectively targeted to LDs, where it mediates membrane engulfment and subsequent degradation, is unclear. Recently, we have reported that two distinct GTPases, the mechanoenzyme, dynamin2 (Dyn2), and the small regulatory Rab GTPase, Rab10, work independently at distinct steps of lipophagy in hepatocytes. Approach and Results In an attempt to understand how these proteins are regulated and recruited to autophagic organelles, we performed a nonbiased biochemical screen for Dyn2‐binding partners and found that Dyn2 actually binds Rab10 directly through a defined effector domain of Rab10 and the middle domain of Dyn2. These two GTPases can be observed to interact transiently on membrane tubules in hepatoma cells and along LD‐centric autophagic membranes. Most important, we found that a targeted disruption of this interaction leads to an inability of cells to trim tubulated cytoplasmic membranes, some of which extend from lipophagic organelles, resulting in LD accumulation. Conclusions This study identifies a functional, and direct, interaction between Dyn2 and a regulatory Rab GTPase that may play an important role in hepatocellular metabolism.

Background: PCGTCL is a rare disorder, accounting for < 1% of all lymphomas. In part given the rarity, timely and accurate diagnosis (dx) remains challenging. Moreover, PCGTCL is typically characterized by a highly aggressive course. We conducted a multi-institutional, retrospective analysis to delineate pathology, patient (pt) characteristics, treatment patterns & outcomes of PCGDTCL in the modern era. Methods: We collected detailed information on pts with PCGDTCL dx between 2000 - 2017 across 10 academic centers. Pathologic data, including IHC & flow characteristics on de-identified pathology reports, were reviewed centrally by an expert dermatopathologist (MP). A pathologic tier was assigned to each case based on fidelity to the following pre-defined minimum criteria: flow cytometric evidence of gamma and/or delta protein-expressing lymphoma or histopathologic evidence of gamma and/or delta protein expression & at least 50% atypical lymphocytes positive for gamma/delta immunostain (IHC) with tissue representative of entire lesion. The presence of >25% CD30 positivity of malignant lymphocytes was an exclusion criterion. Further, PCR evidence of TCR gamma monoclonality or TCR beta/betaF1 negativity alone were inadequate for inclusion with confirmation of gamma/delta phenotype (especially IHC) being key for inclusion. A clinical tier was also assigned to each case based on group consensus. A composite score was derived by combining pathologic & clinical tiers, with those fitting a pre-determined score threshold included in the primary analysis. Univariate (UVA) associations were derived via Cox model for associations with survival. Results: Collectively, all centers submitted a total of 80 cases that were dx & treated locally as PCGDTCL. 48 (60%) cases met pre-defined criteria for inclusion of bona fide dx of PCGTCL. 26 (33%) cases had insufficient composite scores and were grouped in a 2nd tier & 6 cases had incomplete follow-up data and were unsuitable for analysis. The most common reason for placement in the 2nd tier was negativity for gamma/delta IHC or lack of documentation of such testing (n=16). Among the top tier of 48 veritable cases, 32 pts (67%) were male, 39 (81%) white & 4 (8%) black. Median age was 62 years (range 20-88). 19 (40%) pts had B symptoms at dx; ECOG performance status (PS) 0 in 12 pts (25%) & 1-3 in 22 cases (45%) (unknown 29%); anemia was present in 21 pts (44%) & LDH increased in 22 (46%). Bone marrow was involved in only 3 pts (6%) & hemophagocytic syndrome was present at dx in 6 pts (12%). Frontline therapy was heterogeneous (Table 1) with the most common therapies being bexarotene alone in 8 pts; UV therapy in 6 pts; and CHOP in 4 pts. Furthermore, there was inclusion of etoposide in 12 pts (25%), anthracyclines in 9 (19%) & platinum agents in 3 pts (6%). The overall response to 1st line therapy was 40% (19% complete response) with stable disease in 10%, progression in 35% & unknown in 15%. Seven pts (15%) received consolidative stem cell transplantation (SCT), which was allogeneic in all but 1 case. The 2-year PFS for the 48 bona fide pts was 39% (95% CI 0.26-0.59) (Fig 1A) & 2-year OS was 36% (95% CI 0.23-.56) (Fig 1B). The 26 cases in the 2nd tier had overall similar 2-year PFS of 41% (95% CI 0.15-67) and OS of 37% (95% CI 0.22-0.62). In terms of impact of therapy, use of consolidative SCT in 1st remission was associated with improved survival (P=0.02) (Fig 1C). No other therapeutic variable had significance. In UVA for baseline factors, PS (P=0.006) (Fig 1D) and increased vs. normal LDH (P=0.05) were significantly associated with OS. Median OS for pts with normal LDH was 25 months vs 12 months with increased LDH. Median OS for pts with ECOG PS 0 was not reached vs approximately 14 months for ECOG PS 1-3. Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this series represents one of the largest reported to date of PCGDTCL. Accurate diagnosis and classification of PCGDTCL need ongoing analysis and delineation. Using strict criteria, only 60% of cases across 10 academic centers were confirmed as bona fide PCGDTCL. Analysis of these pts treated in the modern era demonstrated modest survival. In addition, we identified several prognostic factors, in particular LDH and ECOG PS, associated with patient outcome. Furthermore, the incorporation of allogeneic SCT in 1st remission may contribute to improved long-term survival. Enhanced treatment options and continued collaboration are critically needed in this rare disease. Disclosures Bennani: Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board. Landsburg:Takeda: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Triphase: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Triphase: Research Funding; Curis, INC: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Curis, INC: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Haun:Karger, Inc.: Other: Royalties: Textbook. William:Techspert: Consultancy; Guidepoint Global: Consultancy; Defined Health: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin, Inc.: Consultancy. Mehta-Shah:Kiowa Hakka Kirin: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Verastem Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Innate Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Wilcox:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Feldman:AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Eisai: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; Portola Pharma: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Viracta: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Corvus: Research Funding. Evens:Tesaro: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Horwitz:Affimed: Consultancy; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy; Aileron: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; Infinity/Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Portola: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; Aileron: Research Funding; Portola: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; Miragen: Consultancy; Miragen: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy; ADCT Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aileron: Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Miragen: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Research Funding; Infinity/Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity/Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Affimed: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy; Trillium: Research Funding; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; ADCT Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity/Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Miragen: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Aileron: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; Affimed: Consultancy; Trillium: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract INTRODUCTION The impact of treatment on both the quality and the quantity of life, i.e. the ‘net clinical benefit’, should be considered to facilitate shared decision making. Two methods that combine survival and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data: Quality Adjusted Effect Sizes (QASES) and Joint Modelling (JM) were applied to gain insight in the net clinical benefit. METHODS The net clinical benefit in one RCT (EORTC 26951 comparing radiotherapy (RT) + PCV chemotherapy versus RT alone) was calculated as a proof of concept for other trials. With the QASES method, effect sizes for differences in survival and HRQoL between treatment arms were calculated. JM allows simultaneous modeling of a longitudinal outcome (HRQoL), and a time-to event outcome (survival). HRQoL scales/items that were selected for primary analysis in the main study were also selected for this analysis: fatigue, global health, social functioning, communication deficit, seizures, physical functioning, and nausea/vomiting. RESULTS 288/386 patients completed baseline HRQoL forms and were included in the analysis. Overall survival (OS) was significantly longer with combined treatment (42.3 vs. 30.6 months). The percentage of patients who experienced a clinically relevant deterioration (≥10 points) in nausea/vomiting, fatigue, social functioning and global health up to one year after treatment compared to baseline was larger in the RT+PCV arm. QASES corresponded to a reduction in the median OS difference from 9.7 months up till 5.5 months, given equal weights to OS and HRQoL. JM analyses resulted in a theoretical loss of treatment effect in OS of 2–6% when adjusting for HRQoL. CONCLUSION Both methods showed that adjusting for the impact of treatment on a relevant HRQoL parameter reduced the survival benefit in the experimental treatment arm compared to standard treatment arm. Applying these methods may facilitate communicating the impact of treatment to patients in clinical practice.

Abstract BACKGROUND A major impediment to improving neuro-oncology outcomes is poor clinical trial accrual. METHODS We convened a multi-stakeholder group including Society for Neuro-Oncology, Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology, patient advocacy groups, clinical trial cooperative groups, and other partners to determine how we can improve trial accrual. RESULTS We described selected factors contributing to poor trial accrual and possible solutions. We focused on patient and community factors, disparities, physician and provider factors, clinical trial factors, and site and organizational factors CONCLUSIONS We will implement strategies with the intent to double accrual to neuro-oncology trials over the next 5 years.

Abstract Background We have previously reported and validated that the E-IPI, provided better discrimination of overall survival (OS) than the IPI for DLBCL patients > 60 years of age treated with R-CHOP (Advani et al., BJH 2010 and 12-ICML 2013 Abstract 222). Recent reports suggest that males > 60 years treated with R-CHOP have worse outcomes likely related to differences in rituximab clearance (Muller et al., Blood 2012). In this study, we explored if the addition of male sex to the E-IPI further improved risk stratification. Methods DLBCL patients > 60 years treated with R-CHOP on the E4494, RICOVER-60 and GELA 98-5 trials were included. A multivariate analysis was performed to assess whether male sex is an independent prognostic factor for OS in addition to the five E-IPI risk factors, E-IPI score, and E-IPI risk group. Male sex (S) was added as an additional risk factor to the E-IPI (S-EIPI, 0-6) and patients regrouped according to the number of risk factors: low (L)=0-1, low intermediate (LI)=2, high intermediate (HI)=3 and high (H)=4-6 based on the observed OS using Kaplan-Meier curves. C-statistic was used to compare the discrimination ability. The 5 year OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results 1079 patients (E4494, n=267; RICOVER-60, n=610; GELA 98-5, n=202) with a median follow-up of 8.9 years were included. In multivariate analyses, male sex was a significant independent predictor for OS adjusting for all five E-IPI factors, (HR 1.5, p < 0.0001), E-IPI score (HR 1.42, p < 0.001), and E-IPI risk group (HR 1.42, p < 0.001) (Table 1). C-statistic was 0.66 for S-EIPI and 0.64 for EIPI. Incorporation of sex into the E-IPI shifted 35% patients to higher risk groups, including 110 patients into the highest risk group (Table 2). The estimated 5 year OS for the S-EIPI L, LI, HI, and H risk groups was 87%, 70%, 58%, and 40%, respectively (Table 3). Compared to E-IPI, the 95% C.I. did not overlap among S-EIPI risk groups. Conclusion For DLBCL patients >60 years treated with R-CHOP, our results suggest the addition of male sex to the E-IPI may improve categorization of patients into well-defined clinically relevant risk groups. Patients with low risk S-EIPI have an excellent outcome (5 year OS 87%). Patients with high risk S-EIPI have a 5 year OS of only 40% and therapies beyond standard R-CHOP need to be explored. Disclosures: Horning: Genentech: Employment; Roche: Equity Ownership.

Preclinical and clinical evidence suggest a potential advantage for infusional therapy in lymphoma. Sixty-two analyzable patients with predominantly intermediate-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma received cyclophosphamide (200 mg/m2 per day), doxorubicin (12.5 mg/m2 per day), and etoposide (60 mg/m2per day) (CDE) by continuous intravenous infusion for 4 days (96 hours) every 3 weeks for a maximum of 8 cycles. By the age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (IPI), 42% were at high risk and 58% were at high-intermediate risk. Complete response (CR) occurred in 30 (48%) patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 35%, 64%), and partial response occurred in 16 (26%) patients, yielding an overall response rate of 74% (95% CI, 62%, 84%). Failure-free survival (FFS) rates at 1 and 2 years were 55% (95% CI, 43%, 67%) and 50% (95% CI, 38%, 62%), respectively. When comparing the outcome for 62 patients receiving infusional CDE with historical data derived from 927 IPI-matched lymphoma patients using a Cox proportional hazards model, there was a nonsignificant trend favoring CDE in FFS (P = .12) and overall survival (P = .09). Severe or life-threatening toxicity included neutropenia (68%), anemia (57%), thrombocytopenia (44%), and infection (24%). Two patients (3%) died of treatment-related infectious complications. The primary end point of improving 1-year FFS from 55% to 70% was not achieved with infusional CDE given as initial therapy in patients with poor-risk intermediate-grade lymphoma. It is unlikely that infusional therapy as used in this study produces a 25% or greater relative improvement in FFS compared with standard therapy.