Citations

BACKGROUND: While health systems have implemented resources to improve lipid management in people with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the population-level effectiveness is unclear. METHODS: Electronic health record data from patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2023, across 16 US academic health systems were analyzed. Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (defined by diagnosis and procedure codes) was established on or before the index date defined as the date of the most recent LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol) or the last day of the study period for those without an LDL-C available. Systems were surveyed to identify lipid management programs (eg, prevention/lipid clinic, electronic health record–based tools, and lipid management algorithms). Sequential multilevel multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to (1) assess the system-level association between an LDL-C <70 mg/dL and the presence of lipid management programs, adjusting for patient-level demographic and clinical characteristics, and (2) whether system-level uptake of statin or nonstatin lipid-lowering therapy was associated with an LDL-C <70 mg/dL. RESULTS: We included 1 738 042 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (median, 88 365 per system; range, 17 086–2 48 371). About 81% of the health systems had prevention or lipid clinics. The proportion of those on statins ranged from 31.0% to 60.4% across health systems (median, 46.3%). Lower proportions were observed in the use of high-intensity statins (16.2%–33.1%), nonstatins (2.6%–8.1%), and combination lipid-lowering therapy (1.7%–6.3%). Among those with an LDL-C level available (n=890 521), 42.5% had an LDL-C <70 mg/dL, ranging 35.8% to 49.4% across systems. There was no association between the odds of achieving LDL-C <70 mg/dL and health system lipid management algorithm, prevention clinics/lipid clinics, or electronic health record–based tools. Neither system-level high-intensity statin utilization nor nonstatin use was associated with an LDL-C <70 mg/dL. CONCLUSIONS: Despite variability in lipid management resources and lipid-lowering therapy use across systems, many did not reach an LDL-C <70 mg/dL, and there was low uptake of lipid-lowering therapy. Innovative implementation strategies are needed for system-level lipid management.

Abstract WSD0922-Fu is an oral, CNS-penetrant, small molecule EGFR inhibitor which potently inhibits EGFR aberrations specific to non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and glioblastoma (GBM). MC1914 (NCT04197934) is a first-in-human phase 1 trial in patients with EGFR aberrant recurrent GBM and NSCLC. After determining the maximum tolerated dose, adults with recurrent GBM were treated in two expansion cohorts: (a) non-surgical cohort (6/12 patients thus far): EGFRvIII mutation, first recurrence; food-effect study included (b) surgical cohort (6/6 patients), any EGFR mutation, any recurrence; window-of-opportunity study (WOO) included. Among these 12 patients, median age = 60 years; 50% female; 58% ECOG 0). All patients received prior radiation and temozolomide. After the WOO or food-effect study, patients were dosed at 120 mg BID (5 days on, 2 days off), and escalated to 160 mg BID (5 days on, 2 days off) based on tolerability. Common adverse events (&gt;40%) are comparable to other EGFR inhibitors (acneiform rash, diarrhea, fatigue, xerosis, pruritis). Treatment-related grade 3+ adverse events were limited to lymphopenia (n = 1). WSD0922-Fu exposure in the fed state exceeded the fasted state (median plasma Cmax and AUC0-24h are 1.6x and 1.3x, respectively) with a delayed Tmax (6.0 vs 1.8 hours). For the WOO, time between last dose administered to tumor collection ranged between 4 - 13.5 hours. Median tumor WSD0922-Fu concentration was 0.76 µg/g; estimated median unbound tumor concentration was 24.9 ng/g and within expectations for pharmacodynamic effect. Median brain/plasma ratio = 0.59; median unbound brain/unbound plasma = 0.88. Enrollment to the non-surgical cohort is ongoing, so formal efficacy data remain immature. However, examples of clinical efficacy will be shown along with data on recurrence patterns. Phase 2 clinical trial development is in progress.

Abstract Front-line pharmaceutical interventions for treating acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) are not uniformly effective and have toxic side effects. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) are a heterogeneous population of immature myeloid cells with potent in vitro and in vivo immunosuppressive functions. Clinical translation of in vitro–generated MDSCs has been limited because of requirements for multiple, high infusion doses, the relatively low yield from peripheral blood–sourced MDSCs (PB-MDSCs), and inconsistent product quality. To circumvent these obstacles, we developed a methodology to generate MDSCs using human induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)–derived CD34+ cells. Compared with PB-MDSCs, iPSC-derived MDSCs (iMDSCs) shared similar morphology, phenotype, and suppressive function. We found that the CD14+ iMDSC subset possessed the highest suppressor function. In previous studies, we reported that MDSCs transferred into mice with GVHD lost suppressor function because of inflammasome activation and immature myeloid cell maturation. In striking contrast to human PB-MDSCs, we show herein that iMDSCs retained 95% of suppressor function in vitro despite exposure to lipopolysaccharide (LPS) plus adenosine triphosphate (ATP), which are stimuli that activate the inflammasome via danger-associated molecular patterns released during early posttransplant conditioning and GVHD-induced injury. In an in vivo xenogenic GVHD model with PB mononuclear cells, iMDSCs significantly increased recipient survival without loss of antileukemia effects. iMDSC RNA sequencing and gene knockdown studies revealed that the maintenance of the purine metabolizing enzyme, phosphoglycerate dehydrogenase, during LPS plus ATP treatment, was linked to iMDSC inflammasome resistance. Taken together, these findings provide a platform for translating in vitro–generated, off-the-shelf iMDSCs into the clinic for suppressing a spectrum of adverse immune responses, including GVHD.

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.

11507 Background: Advanced uterine leiomyosarcoma (uLMS) is an aggressive malignancy with poor prognosis. Standard-of-care treatments, including trabectedin (Tb) or pazopanib (P), provide median progression-free survival (PFS) of 3-4 months (mo) and objective response rates (ORR) of ~11%. Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) in a subset of uLMS supports the use of PARP inhibitors combined with DNA-damaging agents. Preclinical studies demonstrated synergistic activity of olaparib and temozolomide (T+O), and a prior single-arm Phase II study of T+O showed promising efficacy independent of an established biomarker, warranting further investigation in a randomized setting. Methods: Alliance A092104 is a Phase II/III trial evaluating olaparib (200 mg BID) plus temozolomide (75 mg/m² daily, days 1-7, every 21 days) versus investigator’s choice of Tb or P in patients (pts) with advanced uLMS who progressed on ≥2 prior systemic therapies. Stratification factors included ECOG (0-1 vs. 2) and prior lines (2 vs. ≥3). The Phase II (Phase III) primary endpoint was PFS (OS), with a planned suspension of accrual at the end of Phase II. A total of 70 evaluable pts (58 PFS events) were needed to detect an improvement in PFS from 4 vs. 8 mo with power of 90% and 1-sided type I error of 10%, with futility assessed after 29 PFS events. Upon meeting the Phase II futility threshold for PFS, the trial was permanently closed. Data were released from the data and safety monitoring board. Pts continue to be followed for outcomes. Results: 74 pts enrolled (Arm 1: T+O, n = 37; Arm 2: investigator’s choice, n = 37 (Tb, 18; P, 13; 6 pts did not start treatment). The arms were balanced for baseline demographics except race, with the T+O arm having a higher proportion of black/African American (29.7% vs. 16.2%). 21 pts remain on treatment. Hematologic adverse events (AEs) were more frequent in the T+O arm, with Grade 4 neutropenia (19.5%) and thrombocytopenia (8.3%) both managed by dose reductions. Non-hematologic Grade 3 AEs were higher in the investigator’s choice arm (45.2% vs. 13.9%). No Grade 5 AEs were reported. In the first 70 pts, with a median follow-up of 5.9 mo, and 39 total PFS events, the median PFS was 3.2 mo (95% CI: 2.0-NE) for T+O versus 5.6 mo (95% CI: 2.8-NE) for investigator’s choice (HR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.60-2.17; 1-sided stratified log rank p = 0.50). Within Arm 2, the median PFS for Tb and P were respectively 5.6 (95% CI: 3.1-NE) and 3.8 (95% CI: 1.5-NE) mo. 3 pts in the T+0 arm and 1 patient in the investigator’s choice arm (Tb) had a confirmed partial response. Conclusions: The trial did not meet its primary endpoint of PFS in Phase II. This suggests that a biomarker may be needed before there is further exploration of PARP inhibitor-based regimens in uLMS. Overall survival and analysis of tissue-based biomarkers will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT05432791 .

6002 Background: There is a need for continued improvement in outcomes with systemic therapy for advanced cSCC. Pre-clinical data suggest immunologic synergy between IgG1 mAb therapy targeting EGFR and PD-1:PD-(L)1 blockade. Methods: Alliance A091802 is a randomized phase II trial of avelumab (AV) (800 mg) plus cetuximab (C) (500 mg/m2) vs. AV alone every 2 weeks for up to 2 years (yrs). C was given for 1 yr in the AV+C arm. Crossover at progression to AV+C was allowed in the AV arm. Randomization was 1:1 and stratified by PD-L1 [+(>1%) vs. -] and HIV status (+ vs. -). Eligible patients (pts) had distant metastatic or unresectable locally advanced cSCC, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb naive, no prior cetuximab in the advanced setting, ECOG PS 0-2, HIV+ if CD4 >200 and VL <200. Pts with CLL, immunosuppression, or active autoimmune diseases were excluded. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) (Ho: Median=12 mo vs Ha: 21 mo or a 75% improvement, power of 80% with one-sided alpha 0.2, n=57, 37 PFS events required). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), confirmed response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate, and toxicity. After 31/37 events, an early unplanned analysis (along with sensitivity analyses) was performed because it became apparent that 37 events would not be reached. These results were submitted to the Alliance Data and Safety Monitoring Board, which recommended releasing the data. Data cutoff was 1/16/25. Results: 60 pts were enrolled between 2019-2023; 57 pts were evaluable. Median age was 72 yrs (41‒93), 96.5% were white, 91.2% male, all HIV-; 75.4% PD-L1+. 84.2% were head/neck origin, 47.1% had distant metastasis, and there were no differences in baseline characteristics by arm. AV+C significantly improved PFS compared to AV [median 11.1 months (mo) (7.6‒not reached (NR)) vs. 4.8 mo (2.8‒NR) hazard ratio (HR) 0.53 95% CI (0.26‒1.09), one-sided p=0.041]. The median OS of AV+C vs. AV was NR (25.2‒NR) vs. 35.8 mo (18.6‒NR) HR 0.77 (0.33‒1.78) p=0.267. ORR was 31.0% in the AV+C arm and 21.4% in the AV arm. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) of any grade (G) occurred in 93% and 78.6%, respectively, and were G>3 in 48.3% and 21.5% of pts in the AV+C [most common G3 TRAEs were rash (20.7%) and infusion-related reaction (20.7%)] and AV arms, respectively. There were no G5 events. Outcomes after crossover and by PD-L1 status will be presented subsequently. Conclusions: Avelumab plus cetuximab significantly improved PFS vs. avelumab alone in advanced cSCC pts, without unexpected toxicity. Alliance A091802 supports a larger confirmatory study with combination cetuximab and PD-1:PD-(L)1 blockade. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; U10CA180868 (NRG Oncology); U10CA180888 (SWOG); https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . EMD Serono CrossRef Funder ID: 10.13039/100004755. Clinical trial information: NCT03944941 .

Background: Nationally, many ASCVD patients fail to achieve an LDL-C <70 mg/dL, and uptake of both statin and non-statin therapies is low. The degree to which this varies across health systems is less clear. Methods: A cross sectional analysis was performed where lipid levels and lipid lowering therapies (LLT) were assessed using electronic health record data in patients with a previous diagnosis of ASCVD. The data was obtained across 14 US healthcare systems between 1/1/2021-12/31/2022. Proportions of patients with an active prescription of any statin, high intensity statin, ezetimibe, PCSK9i, and combination therapy (two or more agents) within 395 days of the most recent LDL-C value (index date) was evaluated overall and by participating site. Additionally, the proportion of patients with an LDL-C <70 mg/dL at the index date was also assessed. Results: Across 14 health systems, 1,118,623 patients with ASCVD were identified (median 61,840 per health system, range 8,161-182,315). Overall, 675,776 (60.4%) had an LDL-C level in the past year (range 39.1% - 70.8%). Of those with a lipid level, achievement of LDL-C <70 mg/dL ranged from 34.6-47.2%. In total, 42.6% were on any statin, 20.1% were on a high intensity statin, 4.3% on ezetimibe, and 1.2% on a PCSK9i. Only 2.9% were on combination therapy of a statin with ezetimibe or a PCSK9i. Variability was seen across health systems in utilization of each of these therapies, however even in the highest performing health systems, LLT uptake and achievement of LDL-C < 70mg/dL remained low ( Figure). Conclusion: Variability in utilization of LLT in ASCVD patients between health systems suggests that system-level factors may impact achieving guideline-based LDL-C goals. Despite the variability, the highest proportion of patients achieving an LDL-C <70mg/dL remained under 50% indicating the need for aggressive implementation efforts.

11514 Background: The role of immunotherapy remains uncertain in most sarcomas. We recently showed significant antitumor benefit for cabozantinib (C) with N in AS previously treated with a taxane. Since chemotherapy-immunotherapy combinations may synergize, and paclitaxel remains a standard of care option for advanced AS, we hypothesized that P+N would be more effective than P alone. Methods: We report Arm 1 (P+N) and Arm 2 (P) of this open label, multi-arm, phase II study. Pts all had locally advanced/metastatic AS, and no prior taxane (including adjuvant) or checkpoint inhibitor prior to entry. Pts were randomized 1:1 (stratified scalp/face vs other) to receive P 80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15 every 4 weeks (wks), with (Arm 1) or without (Arm 2) N (480 mg intravenously every 4 wks). A pt could remain on study beyond disease progression (PD), after the initial 12 wk evaluation (4 wk confirmatory scan required), but responses were censored at 12 wks. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) comparing P+N to P, with an assumed improvement from a median of 4 to 7 months with N added to P (power = 85.3%, alpha = 0.148, and one interim analysis (Wieand rule) for futility planned after 30 events). Secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), adverse events (AEs), overall survival (OS), and pt reported outcomes (PRO). At PD, Arm 2 (P) pts were permitted to receive C+N. Results: 62 evaluable pts (P+N = 30, P = 32 pts) were balanced for age, race, ECOG PS 0 vs. 1, site of disease (including radiation related vs. not), while P+N had more females (60%) and P had more males (63%). Median PFS for P+N was 7.2 mo (5.3-17 mo), and 8.3 mo (4.0-18 mo) for P (hazard ratio (HR) 1.01 (95%CI: 0.55-1.9), p = 0.96). Median PFS for scalp/face was 16 mo (95%CI: 10-NR) for P+N and 8.3 mo (95%CI: 3.7-NR) for P. Median PFS for all others was 5.5 mo (95%CI 4.3-16) for P+N, and 6.0 mo (95%CI 4.1-NR) for P. Median OS was 18 mo (13-NR) in P+N, and 23 mo (15-NR) in P (HR 1.3 (95%CI: 0.63-2.7), p = 0.48). Overall confirmed ORR: P+N = 33% (10/30 pts, with 4 partial responses (PR) and 6 complete responses (CR) with scalp/face ORR = 73%, all others ORR = 11%). Overall ORR for P = 34% (11/32 pts, with 7 PR and 4 CR, with scalp/face ORR = 38%, all others ORR = 26%). Grade 3-4 AEs regardless of attribution occurred in 57% of P+N, and 44% of P, most commonly ( > 10%) fatigue, AST increase, and dyspnea for P+N (n = 3 each), and anemia (n = 4) for P. Conclusions: P alone can be an effective therapy in a subset of pts with AS. The combination of P+N failed to demonstrate improvement in median PFS over P alone, but may show benefit in scalp/face AS. OS trended better with P alone. No new safety signals were observed. The impact of weekly steroid premedication prior to P+N on these outcomes remains to be determined. PRO and exploratory analyses are ongoing. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24 CA196171; NCT04339738. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT04339738 .

Abstract Background: Based on preclinical data showing addition of CDK4/6 inhibitors to gemcitabine is synergistic, ribociclib was evaluated in combination with gemcitabine to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose limiting toxicities (DLT). Methods: In this single arm multicohort phase I trial, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of Ribociclib plus Gemcitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients received Gemcitabine intravenously on days 1 and 8 followed by Ribociclib days 8–14, with treatment repeated every 3 weeks. Results: The study enrolled 43 patients between October 2017 and September 2019. The escalation phase (19 patients) determined the MTD and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) to be ribociclib 800mg daily and gemcitabine 1000mg/m2 for the expansion phase (24 patients). One patient experienced Grade 4 thrombocytopenia. Eleven patients experienced Grade 3 adverse events (AE), the most common being neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia. No partial or complete responses were observed. 15/22 (68%) of efficacy evaluable patients who received the MTD achieved best response of stable disease. Conclusions: The addition of Ribociclib to Gemcitabine was tolerated well and yielded stability of tumors in both cohorts. Ribociclib and gemcitabine could have synergistic activity in certain tumor types, and our data provides support for the combination. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03237390

Introduction: Guidelines are increasingly recommending a goal LDL-C <55 mg/dL in persons with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The proportion and characteristics of US adults with ASCVD with an LDL-C <55 mg/dL remains unclear. Aims: To evaluate lipid management in ASCVD patients and factors associated with achieving an LDL-C <55mg/dL. Methods: Using electronic health record data from 8 US health systems, we evaluated LDL-C levels and treatment patterns in persons with prevalent ASCVD seen as outpatients between 1/1/2021-12/31/2021 with an LDL-C level within the prior year. Multivariable logistic regression modeling with generalized estimating equations was used to evaluate factors associated with an LDL-C <55 mg/dL. Results: Among 178,240 eligible ASCVD patients, 43.5% (77,472) had an LDL- C <70 mg/dL and 22.0% (39,270) had an LDL-C <55 mg/dL. Older age was associated with higher odds of LDL-C <55 mg/dL (OR 1.10 per 10 years, 95% CI 1.07-1.13), while female sex (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.68-0.64) Black race (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.70-0.86), and non-coronary artery disease forms of ASCVD including peripheral artery disease (PAD, OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.58-0.64) and cerebrovascular disease (CeVD, OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.66-0.79) were associated with lower odds of LDL-C <55 mg/dL in multivariable modeling. Overall, while 75.0% were on a statin, only 36.9% were on a high-intensity statin, 5.7% were on ezetimibe, and 1.7% were on a PCSK9i. Combination therapy was rare: only 4.2% were on a statin+ezetimibe, 0.5% on statin+PCSK9i, and 0.3% on all three. Conclusions: Less than a quarter of US patients with ASCVD achieve an LDL <55 mg/dL. Achieving this goal is even less common among younger adults, women, Black persons, and those with PAD and CeVD. Current therapeutic regimens often fail to use high-intensity statins, and markedly underutilize combinations of statins with ezetimibe and/or PCSK9 inhibitors.