Significant Difference In Overall Response Rate Research Articles

Chemotherapy plus EGFR antibody as conversion treatment in RAS wild type, right-sided metastatic colon cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

e15568 Background: The optimal conversion strategy for right-sided RAS wild type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains a contentious issue, especially regarding the role of EGFR antibodies. EGFR antibody treatment might be an attractive option in patients with contraindications to bevacizumab or in hyperselected patients with microsatellite stable subtypes and without RAS/BRAF/HER2 alterations, potentially allowing a shorter time to conversion surgery. Methods: We performed a systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized trials reporting the overall response rate (ORR) and resection rate following chemotherapy (CT) plus anti-EGFR agents (cetuximab or panitumumab) for right-sided mCRC. Studies were selected regardless of whether the resection rate was a study endpoint or not. We used a random-effects model with generic inverse variance to compute pooled ORR and resection rates and to compare CT regimens combined with anti-EGFR or anti-VEGF agents. Results: Ten randomized trials with a total of 4465 mCRC patients were included; seven trials reported the resection rate as a secondary endpoint. 828/4465 (18.5%) patients were right-sided, of whom 419/828 (50.6%) patients received CT doublet or triplet plus anti-EGFR, 263/828 (31.8%) treated with CT plus bevacizumab, and 146/828 (17.6%) patients with CT alone. The ORR was significantly higher in the anti-EGFR group compared to CT alone (50.89% vs 31.03%, OR: 2.23 [95% CI: 1.50-3.32], p < 0.01). No significant difference in ORR was observed between the CT plus anti-EGFR and CT plus bevacizumab groups (50.89% vs 53.32%, OR: 0.89 [95% CI: 0.65-1.21], p = 0.44). Resection rates were 8.08% for CT plus anti-EGFR, 4.79% for CT plus bevacizumab, and 12.24% for CT alone, with no significant differences among the three arms (χ2= 2.15, p = 0.34). Subgroup analysis of RAS/BRAF WT patients with right-sided tumors from the PARADIGM and PEAK trials showed no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) between the CT plus anti-EGFR or bevacizumab groups (11.01m vs 11.60m, HR = 1.04 [95% CI: 0.58-1.50]), but there was a trend toward improved overall survival (OS) with anti-EGFR treatment (30.66m vs 28.67m, HR = 0.81 [95% CI: 0.45-1.17]). Conclusions: The data indicate that augmenting chemotherapy with anti-EGFR could be a viable conversion therapy for patients with RAS/BRAF WT right-sided mCRC, underscoring its potential utility in this subset of patients.

Prognostic relevance of circulating lymphoma cells at diagnosis in newly diagnosed follicular lymphoma patients.

Follicular lymphoma (FL) is the most common indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Circulating lymphoma (CL) cells can be seen at diagnosis in some FL patients, however, previous studies evaluating this have shown mixed results. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the impact of CL at diagnosis on outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed FL using data from a single center. Patients were divided into CL+ and CL- based on immunophenotyping via peripheral blood (PB) flow cytometry. CL was defined as detectable clonally restricted B-cells that matched the actual or expected B-cell immunophenotype of FL. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) after first-line treatment and secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), diagnosis to treatment interval (DTI), progression of disease within 2years of diagnosis (POD24), and cumulative incidence of transformation between the two groups. Among the 541 patients with FL, 204 had PB flow cytometry performed at diagnosis, and after excluding patients not meeting the eligibility criteria, 147 cases remained with 24 (16%) CL+ at diagnosis. Patients in the CL+ group were younger (53 vs. 58years, p=0.02), had more extranodal involvement (83% vs. 44%, p<0.01), follicular lymphoma international prognostic index 3-5 (55% vs. 31%, p=0.01), and a higher proportion received first-line immunochemotherapy (75% vs. 43%, p=0.01) compared to the CL-group. The median PFS was not significantly different between CL+ (6.27years, 95% CI=3.61-NR) and CL- (6.61years, 95% CI=5.10-9.82) cohorts regardless of the first-line treatment or level of absolute PB CL cells. There was no significant difference in ORR, median OS, DTI, POD24, and cumulative incidence of transformation between the two groups. In our study, we found that the presence of CL cells at diagnosis in FL in the contemporary era did not impact outcomes and survival.

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Ixazomib-Containing Regimens in the Treatment of Patients with Multiple Myeloma

To investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of ixazomib-containing regimens in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). A retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical efficacy and adverse reactions of 32 MM patients treated with a combined regimen containing ixazomib in the Hematology Department of the First People's Hospital of Lianyungang from January 2020 to February 2022. Among the 32 patients, 15 patients were relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (R/RMM) (R/RMM group), 17 patients who responded to bortezomib induction therapy but converted to ixazomib-containing regimen due to adverse events (AE) or other reasons (conversion treatment group). The treatment included IPD regimen (ixazomib+pomalidomide+dexamethasone), IRD regimen (ixazomib+lenalidomide+dexamethasone), ICD regimen (ixazomib+cyclophosphamide+dexamethasone), ID regimen (ixazomib+dexamethasone). Of 15 R/RMM patients, overall response rate (ORR) was 53.3%(8/15), among them, 1 achieved complete response (CR), 2 achieved very good partial response (VGPR) and 5 achieved partial response (PR). The ORR of the IPD, IRD, ICD and ID regimen group were 100%（3/3）, 42.9%（3/7）, 33.3%（1/3）, 50%（1/2）， respectively， there was no statistically significant difference in ORR between four groups (χ 2=3.375, P =0.452). The ORR of patients was 50% after first-line therapy, 42.9% after second line therapy, 60% after third line therapy or more, with no statistically significant difference among them (χ2=2.164, P =0.730). In conversion treatment group, ORR was 88.2%(15/17), among them, 6 patients achieved CR, 5 patients achieved VGPR and 4 patients achieved PR. There was no statistically significant difference in ORR between the IPD（100%， 3/3）, IRD（100%， 6/6）, ICD（100%， 3/3） and ID（60%， 3/5） regimen groups (χ2=3.737，P =0.184). The median progression-free survival (PFS) time of R/RMM patients was 9 months (95% CI : 6.6-11.4 months), the median overall survival (OS) time was 18 months (95% CI : 11.8-24.4 months). The median PFS time of conversion treatment group was 15 months (95% CI : 7.3-22.7 months), the median OS time not reached. A total of 10 patients suffered grade 3- 4 adverse event (AE). The common hematological toxicities were leukocytopenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia. The common non-hematological toxicities were gastrointestinal symptoms (diarrhea, nausea and vomit), peripheral neuropathy, fatigue and infections. Grade 1-2 peripheral neurotoxicity occurred in 7 patients. The ixazomib-based chemotherapy regimens are safe and effective in R/RMM therapy, particularly for conversion patients who are effective for bortezomib therapy. The AE was manageable and safe.

Neoadjuvant pyrotinib plus trastuzumab and chemotherapy for HER2-positive breast cancer: a prospective cohort study

BackgroundThis prospective study aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of pyrotinib (P) combined with 4 cycles of epirubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by 4 cycles of taxane and trastuzumab (P + EC-TH) regimen as neoadjuvant therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive breast cancer and to investigate the predictive value of p53, p63, and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) status for neoadjuvant efficacy.MethodsA total of 138 HER2-positive breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant therapy and underwent surgery were included. Case group: 55 patients received P + EC-TH regimen. Control group: 83 patients received EC-TH regimen. The chi-square test, Fisher’s exact test, and logistic regression analysis were applied. The primary endpoint was total pathologic complete response (tpCR), and the secondary endpoints were breast pathologic complete response (bpCR), overall response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs).ResultsIn the case group, the tpCR rate was 63.64% (35/55), the bpCR rate was 69.09% (38/55), and the ORR was 100.00% (55/55). In the control group, the tpCR rate was 39.76% (33/83), the bpCR rate was 44.58% (37/83), and the ORR was 95.18% (79/83). The case group had significantly higher tpCR and bpCR rates than those of the control group (P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference in ORR (P > 0.05). The tpCR was associated with the status of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and androgen receptor (AR), and the patients with any negative ER, PR, AR, or combined, were more likely to achieve tpCR than those with positive results (P < 0.05). The p53-positive patients were more likely to achieve tpCR and bpCR than p53-negative patients (P < 0.05). The incidence of hypokalemia and diarrhea in the case group was higher than that in the control group (P < 0.05). The AEs developed were all manageable, and no treatment-related death occurred.ConclusionThe efficacy and safety of the P + EC-TH regimen were verified by this study. The HER2-positive breast cancer patients treated with the EC-TH neoadjuvant regimen were more likely to achieve tpCR or bpCR if pyrotinib was administered simultaneously.

Clinical Implications of TP53 Mutations/Allelic State in Patients (Pts) with Myelodysplastic Syndromes/Neoplasms (MDS) Treated with Hypomethylating Agents (HMA)- a Multicenter, Retrospective Analysis from the Validate Database

TK and JPB Co-first; RK, DS, and AMZ are Co-senior authors. Introduction MDS with TP53 mutations ( TP53 MT) are associated with high-risk disease features and rapid progression to AML. Effective treatment for this aggressive subtype is still not available. As compared to monoallelic TP53 MT, biallelic MT have been associated with adverse outcomes and worse overall survival (OS), but the impact of allelic status on treatment response and OS after HMA therapy are not well established. In this study, we analyzed TP53 allelic state for a large well annotated cohort of pts with MDS who were treated with HMAs. Methods The VALIDATE database includes pts with MDS treated with frontline HMA from 14 specialized centers. Pts were considered to have biallelic TP53 MT according to the ICC definition (Arber et al. 2022, Blood) if they meet any of the following: a. two TP53 MT (variant allelic frequency [VAF]&amp;gt;10% for each) b. single TP53 MT with copy neutral loss of heterozygosity (CN-LOH, available for 308 pts) c. TP53 MT with del17p and d. Single TP53 MT with VAF &amp;gt;50%. Time to event analyses were estimated using Kaplan-Meier estimator and groups were compared by the log-rank test from the time of HMA initiation. Only higher risk (HR)-MDS pts (IPSS&amp;gt;1 or IPSS-R&amp;gt;3.5) with BM biopsy within 180 days after HMA initiation were assessed for complete response (CR) and overall response rate (ORR) according to the IWG 2023 criteria (Zeidan et al, Blood 2023) (n=480). OS was calculated from time of HMA therapy initiation. This study was supported by an independent research grant from AbbVie. Results A total of 816 pts met eligibility and were included in this analysis. Median age was 68 years (IQR: 61-74) and 64% were men. MDS excess blast (EB) 1/2 was the most common MDS subtype (62%). Overall, 78% of the pts were treated with HMA monotherapy (26% decitabine [DEC] and 74% azacitidine [AZA]) and 22% received HMA as part of combination therapy. In total, 40% of the pts underwent allogenic HSCT. Median HMA treatment time was 5 months (mo), IQR:3-11. Median follow up time was 17 mo (IQR:9-31). TP53 MT were detected in 253 pts (31%) at time of MDS diagnosis, of whom 153 (60%) pts had biallelic TP53 MT and 100 (40%) pts had monoallelic TP53 MT. Missense MTs were identified in 80% of pts with monoallelic TP53 MT. TP53 MT/del17p (33%), TP53 MT/CN-LOH (28%), and multiple TP53 MT (25%) were the most common combinations in pts with biallelic TP53 MT. Pts with TP53 MT had higher rates of MDS-EB (74% vs. 61%, p&amp;lt;0.001). Complex karyotype was observed in 112 (73%) pts with biallelic TP53 MT and 81 (81%) pts with monoallelic TP53 MT (p=0.154). Median number of HMA cycles among pts with TP53 MT was 8 (IQR:5-12) and higher compared to pts without TP53 MT (5 cycles, IQR:3-9), p=0.032 ( Panel-A). In a logistic regression model for CR, TP53 MT was not associated with probability of achieving CR (1.4, 0.89-2.29). CR rates for pts with biallelic TP53 MT (18%) and monoallelic TP53 MT (14%) were not significantly different, p=0.37. There were also no significant differences in ORR observed between biallelic TP53 MT (59%) and monoallelic TP53 MT (54%) pts, p=0.39. Among TP53 MTpts treated with HMA monotherapy, pts treated with AZA compared to DEC had similar odds for ORR (OR:1.1, 95%CI: 0.7-1.6)/CR (OR: 0.8, 95%CI: 0.4-1.3) and hazard for OS (HR: 1.1, 0.9-1.4). As expected, the median OS (mo, 95%CI) for pts with TP53 MT (12, 10-13) was significantly lower than pts without TP53 MT (28, 25-31), p&amp;lt;0.001. Importantly, pts with biallelic TP53 MT (11, 9-14) had no significant difference in median OS compared to monoallelic TP53 MT (13, 11-17), p=0.268 (Panel-B). In a multivariable cox proportional hazard regression model for OS (hazards ratio, 95%CI) adjusted for age (1.0, 0.9-1.0), HSCT (0.4, 0.3-0.4), IPSS-M score (1.2, 1.1-1.3), and complex karyotype (1.4, 1.1-1.8), TP53 MT status (1.8, 1.4-2.3) was still associated with OS. However, biallelic TP53 MT had comparable risk to monoallelic TP53 MT (1.2, 0.9-1.7). Conclusions To our knowledge, VALIDATE is the largest database of MDS pts with TP53 MT who were treated with HMA. We confirm that TP53 MT have significant negative impact on survival, but not on response to HMA therapy. Importantly, we did not observe OS differences between monoallelic and biallelic TP53 MT. We also show that the type of HMA monotherapy used does not impact outcome of these pts. Overall, pts with TP53 MT have very poor outcomes and are in desperate need of new, effective therapies.

RUNX1 Mutation Does Not Significantly Impact the Outcome of Newly Diagnosedadult AML: A Retrospective Study of Chinese AML Patients

Background RUNX1 is one of the recurrent mutated genes in newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with a frequency of 6%~15%. Although historically recognized as a provisional distinct entity, the AML subtype with RUNX1 mutations (AML- RUNX1mut) was eliminated from the 2022 WHO classification system. With the update of AML diagnosis and treatment protocol, different outcomes of AML- RUNX1muthave been reported. However, an in-depth study about the prognostic value of RUNX1 mutations, epecifically the classification change related to AML- RUNX1mut in a large well-annotated cohort is lacking. Methods The clinical data of 1065 AML (excluding acute promyelocytic leukemia and RUNX1 germline mutations) patients according to WHO 2016 and treated from January 2017 to December 2021 at Jiangsu Institute of Hematology were retrospectively collected and analyzed after informed consent. All AML diagnosis samples were analyzed by targeted Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) panel covering 172 frequently mutated genes in hematological malignancies. Demographic and clinical data, disease characteristics at diagnosis, first-line treatment and clinical outcome data were available for all patients. The survival time of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation patients was censored at the time of stem cell transfusion. Cytogenetic and molecular characteristics were used to classify patients into ELN2017 and ELN2022 risk groups (excluding the effect of RUNX1 mutation). Results RUNX1 mutations were detected in 112 (10.5%) patients, namely, 66 (58.9%) male and 46 (41.1%) female. A total of 132 RUNX1 alterations were detected with a medianvariant allelic frequency of 40% (3%~93%). RUNX1 mutations were associated with older age (48.5 vs. 46.0 years old, P=0.087) and antecedent myeloid disorders (6.3% vs. 1.0%, P&amp;lt;0.001). One or more comutations were detected in 106 (94.7%) AML- RUNX1mut patients. The most frequent co-gene abnormalities were FLT3-ITD and DNMT3A mutations which represented the 23.2% and 18.7%. Mutations of CEBPA bZIP, NPM1 and translocations of t(8;21), t(16;16)/inv(16) were uncommon in AML- RUNX1mut with a frequency of 6.3%, 1.8%, 2.7%, 0%, respectively (Table 1). Compared with AML with wild-type RUNX1 (AML- RUNX1wt), AML- RUNX1mut patients had a lower complete remission rate (19.6% vs. 29.7%, P=0.034), lower overall response rate (ORR) (73.5% vs. 84.3%, P=0.006) and higher no response rate (26.5% vs. 15.5%, P=0.021) in the first induction chemotherapy. When comparing groups based on the ELN2017 risk stratification criteria, no significant difference in ORR was observed between RUNX1mut and RUNX1wt patients in the favorable (91.2% vs. 94.0%, P=0.572), intermediate (75.0% vs. 78.4%, P=0.570) and adverse (63.3% vs. 71.4%, P=0.370 ) subgroups (Table 2). The median duration of follow-up of the entire cohort was 8.7 months ( RUNX1wt: 8.4 months; RUNX1mut: 10.0 months). Comparing the two groups, patients with RUNX1 mutations had a lower 5-year overall survival (OS) rate (35.4% vs. 42.3%; HR=1.563; 95% CI: 1.091~2.237, P=0.026), but no significant difference was observed in the 5-year event-free survival (EFS) rate (40.8% vs. 35.4%; HR=1.084; 95% CI: 0.750~1.570, P=0.098) (Table 2). However, when patients were stratified according to the ELN2017 guidelines (excluding the effect of RUNX1 mutation), outcomes did not differ between patients withor without RUNX1 mutation in the favorable (OS: P=0.629, EFS: P=0.137), intermediate (OS: P=0.629, EFS: P=0.114) and adverse (OS: P=0.544; EFS: P=0.714) subgroups. Similar results were obtained according to the ELN2022 guidelines. In multivariate analysis, RUNX1 was not an independent prognostic factor for OS (HR=1.353, 95% CI: 0.922~1.985, P=0.122) and EFS (HR=1.422, 95% CI: 0.975~2.075, P=0.068), while significantly worse OS and EFS were observed in patients with mutated FLT3-ITD, TP53, and DNMT3A ( P-values were all less than 0.05). Conclusion RUNX1 mutations were rarely isolated genetic abnormities that conferred inferior outcomes. However, on the basis of ELN prognosis risk stratification, RUNX1mutation had no impact on the clinical outcomes of AML patients in stratified subgroups. RUNX1 was not an independent prognostic factor for survival. Overall, our findings agree with the updated WHO classification system for AML that AML- RUNX1mut should not be recognized as a distinct AML entity.

Efficacy of Subcutaneous Epcoritamab Vs Tisa-Cel in R/R LBCL CAR T-Naive and CAR T-Eligible Patients: An Indirect Comparison

Background: Epcoritamab is a subcutaneous, off-the-shelf, T-cell-engaging CD3xCD20 bispecific antibody (bsAb) with powerful single-agent activity and a manageable safety profile in relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL), recently approved in the US for the treatment of adults with R/R diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), not otherwise specified, including DLBCL arising from indolent lymphoma, and high-grade B-cell lymphoma after ≥2 lines of systemic therapy. While chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR T) has demonstrated remarkable efficacy in R/R LBCL, there are still barriers to wide adoption, including logistical restrictions and manufacturing limitations. In the absence of head-to-head clinical trial data comparing CAR T with T-cell-engaging bsAbs, we conducted an indirect treatment comparison between CAR T-naive patients treated with epcoritamab in EPCORE NHL-1 (NCT03625037), including a subgroup of CAR T-eligible patients, identified according to ZUMA-1 (NCT02348216) eligibility criteria and utilized in a prior unanchored, matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of epcoritamab and axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) in patients with R/R DLBCL (Thieblemont et al EHA 2023 #P1154), and patients treated with tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) in the JULIET trial (NCT02445248). The CAR T-eligible population was of interest for the comparison of epcoritamab vs tisa-cel as it was most similar in baseline clinical characteristics and comparable to patients examined in CAR T trials. Methods: Published data on the overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, digitized progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) for tisa-cel from JULIET publications were used in MAIC vs individual patient-level data (IPD) of CAR T-naive and CAR T-eligible patients from EPCORE NHL-1 (Nov 2022 data cut). Analyses were adjusted for imbalances in the following baseline characteristics between IPD from EPCORE NHL-1 and aggregate data from JULIET: age 65 years or older, gender, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, disease stage, DLBCL, refractory to last therapy, and prior autologous stem cell transplant. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate survival. Results: A total of 96 CAR T-naive patients from EPCORE NHL-1 were included in the analysis, with an effective sample size of 33 CAR T-naive patients after adjustment. The CAR T-eligible subgroup from EPCORE NHL-1 included 57 patients with an effective sample size of 21 patients after adjustment. After adjustment there was a significant difference in ORR for epcoritamab vs tisa-cel (77.9% vs 53.0%, respectively; difference [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 24.8% [9.5, 40.2]; P=0.002) in the CAR T-naive cohort, and in CR rate (52.3% vs 39.1%, respectively; difference [95% CI]: 13.2% [ 5.9, 32.3]; P=0.174). Also, in the CAR T-naive cohort there was a trend toward PFS benefit for epcoritamab vs tisa-cel after adjustment (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.725; 95% CI: 0.447, 1.177; P=0.194) and OS (HR: 0.611; 95% CI: 0.356, 1.049; P=0.074). In the CAR T-eligible subgroup there was a significant difference in ORR (80.8% vs 53.0%, respectively; difference [95% CI] 27.7% [11.0, 44.4]; P=0.001) and CR rate (61.9% vs 39.1%, respectively; difference [95% CI]: 22.8% [1.5, 44.1]; P=0.036) for epcoritamab vs tisa-cel after adjustment. Also, there was a statistically significant survival benefit for OS (HR: 0.450; 95% CI: 0.227, 0.891; P=0.022) and a numerical trend toward benefit for PFS (HR: 0.548; 95% CI: 0.300, 1.003; P=0.051) when comparing epcoritamab vs tisa-cel after adjustment. Conclusion: In the absence of head-to-head data, this MAIC of the R/R LBCL CAR T-naive cohort and the eligible subgroup treated with epcoritamab vs tisa-cel demonstrated improved response rates and survival outcomes. This study underscores the therapeutic potential of epcoritamab as a novel, subcutaneous, off-the-shelf, core therapy for the treatments of patients with R/R LBCL. Indirect comparisons can be biased by cross-trial differences and further comparisons with longer follow-up are warranted.

Clinical and biological features and prognosis of patients with leukemic non-nodal mantle cell lymphoma

Objective: To investigate the clinical, biological and prognostic characteristics of leukemic non-nodal mantle cell lymphoma (nnMCL). Methods: The clinical data of 14 patients with nnMCL and 238 patients with classical mantle cell lymphoma (cMCL) in Blood Diseases Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences from November 2000 to October 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Among the 14 patients with nnMCL, there were 9 males and 5 females, with the age [M (Q1, Q3)] of 57.5 (52.3, 67.0) years. Among the 238 patients with cMCL, there were 187 males and 51 females, with the age of 58.0 (51.0, 65.3) years. The clinical and biological characteristics of the two groups were recorded and compared. Follow-up and efficacy evaluation were conducted by re-examination during hospital stay and telephone follow-up and so on. Results: The proportion of CD200 expression in nnMCL patients was 8/14, which was higher than that in cMCL patients [14.6% (19/130)] (P=0.001). The proportion of CD23 expression in nnMCL patients was 8/14, which was higher than that in cMCL patients [13.5% (23/171)] (P<0.001). The proportion of CD5 expression in nnMCL patients was 10/14, which was lower than that in cMCL patients [97.4% (184/189)] (P=0.001). The proportion of CD38 expression in nnMCL patients was 4/14, which was lower than that in cMCL patients [69.6% (112/161)] (P=0.005). The expression proportion of sex-determining region of Y chromosome-related high-mobility-group box 11 (SOX11) in nnMCL patients was 1/5, which was lower than that in cMCL patients [77.9% (60/77)] (P=0.014). The proportion of immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region (IGHV) mutations in nnMCL patients was 11/11, which was higher than that in cMCL patients [26.0% (13/50)] (P<0.001). As of April 11, 2021, the follow-up time for nnMCL and cMCL patients was 31 (8-89) months and 48 (0-195) months, respectively. Among the 14 nnMCL patients, 6 patients were still under observation, and 8 patients were treated. The overall response rate (ORR) was 8/8, including 4 patients with complete remission and 4 patients with partial response. The median overall survival and median progression-free survival were not reached in nnMCL patients. In the cMCL group, 50.0% (112/224) patients achieved a complete response, 24.6% (55/224) patients achieved a partial response, and ORR was 74.6% (167/224). There was no statistically significant difference in ORR between the two groups (P=0.205). Conclusions: nnMCL patients have an indolent progression, with higher expression rates of CD23 and CD200 and lower expression rates of SOX11, CD5 and CD38. Most patients have IGHV mutations, with a relatively good prognosis, and"watch and wait"approach is an optional treatment.

Optimal molecular-targeted therapies as first-line treatment for RAS wild-type, right-sided metastatic colorectal cancer from the Analysis and Research in Cancers of the Digestive System (ARCAD) database.

3588 Background: Although anti-EGFR antibody plus doublet chemotherapy has become the standard of first-line treatment for RAS wild-type (wt), left sided metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), the optimal molecular-targeted therapy for RAS wt, right-sided mCRC is not clear. Methods: To evaluate the efficacy between anti-EGFR antibody vs. bevacizumab combination therapy, from 40,889 Individual patient (pt) data from 59 studies in ARCAD mCRC database, 723 pts with RAS wt, right-sided mCRC who received a first-line molecular-targeted therapy with backbone chemotherapy (FOLFOX/FOLFIRI when anti-EGFR antibody combination, and FOLFOX/FOLFIRI/CAPOX/FOLFOXIRI when bevacizumab combination) were selected from 10 randomized studies (FIRE-3, CALGB80495, CRYSTAL, PRIME, CAIRO2, OPUS, TRIBE, TRIBE2, ATOM, and CCOG1201). Primary objective was overall survival (OS), and secondary objectives were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR); Hazard ratio (HR) and Odds ratio (OR) were adjusted for ECOG-PS, age, and gender. Propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) as sensitivity analysis were also performed. Secondary analyses were limited to BRAF wt pts. Results: Anti-EGFR antibody and bevacizumab were administrated in 329 and 394 pts, respectively, of whom 162 and 151 pts were BRAF wt, respectively. Baseline characteristics were as follows (anti-EGFR antibody/bevacizumab): median age, 63.0 years both; female, 47.1/46.4%; and ECOG-PS 0, 53.2/65.2%. The OS and PFS were significantly prolonged in pts receiving bevacizumab combination therapy compared to those receiving anti-EGFR antibody combination therapy (Table). These trends were more pronounced when limited to BRAF wt pts (Table). There were no significant differences in ORR for both overall and BRAF wt pts. These results were similar in the sensitivity analysis (Table). Conclusions: For patients with RAS wt or RAS/ BRAF wt, right-sided mCRC, bevacizumab combination therapy is preferred first-line treatment. [Table: see text]

Genomic landscape and clinical features of rare subtypes of pancreatic cancer: analysis with the national database of Japan

BackgroundSpecial subtypes of pancreatic cancer, such as acinar cell carcinoma (ACC), adenosquamous carcinoma (ASC), and anaplastic carcinoma of the pancreas (ACP), are rare, and so data on them are limited. Using the C-CAT database, we analyzed clinical and genomic characteristics of patients with these and evaluated differences on comparison with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed data on 2691 patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer: ACC, ASC, ACP, and PDAC, entered into C-CAT from June 2019 to December 2021. The clinical features, MSI/TMB status, genomic alterations, overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and time to treatment failure (TTF) on receiving FOLFIRINOX (FFX) or GEM + nab-PTX (GnP) therapy as first-line treatment were evaluated.ResultsNumbers of patients with ACC, ASC, ACP, and PDAC were 44 (1.6%), 54 (2.0%), 25 (0.9%), and 2,568 (95.4%), respectively. KRAS and TP53 mutations were prevalent in ASC, ACP, and PDAC (90.7/85.2, 76.0/68.0, and 85.1/69.1%, respectively), while their rates were both significantly lower in ACC (13.6/15.9%, respectively). Conversely, the rate of homologous recombination-related (HRR) genes, including ATM and BRCA1/2, was significantly higher in ACC (11.4/15.9%) than PDAC (2.5/3.7%). In ASC and ACP, no significant differences in ORR, DCR, or TTF between FFX and GnP were noted, while ACC patients showed a trend toward higher ORR with FFX than GnP (61.5 vs. 23.5%, p = 0.06) and significantly more favorable TTF (median 42.3 vs. 21.0 weeks, respectively, p = 0.004).ConclusionsACC clearly harbors different genomics compared with PDAC, possibly accounting for differences in treatment efficacy.

Frontline immune checkpoint inhibitor-based combination therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients with poor performance status

BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitor-based combination therapy (ICI-based combination) is a new standard of care for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in the frontline setting. Patients with poor performance status (PS) (≥2) were excluded from pivotal trials. Hence, the activity and safety of ICI-based combination therapy in this group of patients is still unknown. MethodsWe performed a multicentre retrospective study of PS ≥2 mRCC patients who received frontline ICI-based combination, either nivolumab-ipilimumab (NI) or pembrolizumab-axitinib (AP). Patients' characteristics, clinical outcomes, and toxicity were collected. We analysed overall response rate (ORR), median progression-free survival (mPFS), median overall survival (mOS) and grade ≥3 adverse events (G ≥ 3AEs). The association between the predictive biomarker IPI (immune prognostic index) and ORR/PFS/OS was also evaluated. ResultsWe identified 70 mRCC patients with PS ≥2 treated with ICI-based combination across 14 institutions between October 2017 and December 2021, including 45 and 25 patients were treated with NI and AP, respectively. Median age at diagnosis was 63 years, 51 (73%) were male, only 17 (24%) had prior nephrectomy, 50 (71%) had synchronous metastatic disease at diagnosis, and 16 (23%) had brain metastases. Sixty-one (87%) and 9 (13%) patients had ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) PS 2 and 3, respectively, and 25 (36%) and 45 (64%) patients were intermediate and poor International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk, respectively. Among all, 91% were clear cell RCC, 7 patients had sarcomatoid features. At the time of the analysis (median follow-up 11.1 months), 41% patients were dead. Median PFS and mOS in the entire cohort were 5.4 months and 16.0 months, respectively; ORR was 31%. No significant differences in ORR, PFS, OS, or G ≥3AEs were seen between NI and AP. The intermediate and poor IPI groups were significantly associated with reduced ORR and shorter PFS. ConclusionWe report the first cohort of PS ≥2 mRCC patients treated with frontline ICI-based combination therapy. The survival outcomes in our cohort were inferior to that reported in pivotal trials. No significant differences in ORR, PFS, OS or toxicity were seen between NI and AP. Prospective real-world studies are needed to confirm these results.

A Preliminary Analysis of Chidamide Combined with R-GemOx (rituximab, gemcitabine and oxaliplatin) As Salvage Treatment for Transplant-Ineligible Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: A Prospective, Multicenter, Single-Arm, Phase II Study

Background: The clinical outcomes remain significantly poor for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), especially transplantation-ineligible R/R DLBCL. R-GemOx (rituximab, gemcitabine and oxaliplatin) is considered as one of the effective and acceptable side-effect therapeutic regimens for those patients. Chidamide, a histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor, plays an anti-tumor effect by selectively inhibiting activity of HDAC1, 2, 3 and 10. Our preclinical finding indicated that chidamide combined with R-GemOx may have potential synergistic anti-tumor effect in DLBCL (unpublished data). Therefore, a prospective, multicenter, single-arm, phase II study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04022005) was initiated to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of chidamide in combination with R-GemOx (CR-GemOx) regimen for transplant-ineligible R/R DLBCL. Here, we reported the preliminary results of this ongoing study. Methods: Patients aged 18-75 years with transplantation-ineligible R/R DLBCL who failed anthracycline-based chemotherapy were enrolled. The CR-GemOx regimen was administered as follows: chidamide, 20 mg, P.O., twice per week; rituximab 375mg/m2, d1, intravenous drip; gemcitabine 1000mg/m2, d2, intravenous drip; oxaliplatin 100mg/m2, d2, intravenous drip. Repeat cycle every 21 days (up to 6 cycles). Patients achieved complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) were administered chidamide as maintenance therapy. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicities. The response was evaluated by using Lugano 2014 criteria. The safety was assessed according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. Results: A total of 41 patients were enrolled between August 2019 and June 2022, including 26 patients (63.4%) with relapsed diseases and 15 patients (36.6%) with refractory diseases. The median age was 60 years (range: 26-74 years). Twenty patients were male (48.8%), and the median number of prior lines of therapy was 1 (range: 1-3). Baseline characteristics were listed in Table 1. All patients received response assessments, the ORR and CR rate were 61.0% and 31.7%, respectively. Notably, among 14 patients with bcl-2/c-myc double-expression (DE), 3 patients achieved CR (21.4%) and 5 patients had PR (35.7%). Sixteen patients received chidamide maintenance therapy. At the cut-off date of July 21st, 2022, the median PFS was 7.6 months (95% confidence interval: 2.7 - 12.5 months) with a median follow-up of 10.1 months. There were not significant differences in ORR (57.1% versus 64.0%, p=0.673) and median PFS (4.6 versus 12.4 months, p=0.079) between DE and non-DE patients. In the safety analysis population, the most common (≥20%) treatment-related adverse events (AEs) at any grade were neutropenia (65.9%, 27/41), thrombocytopenia (63.4%, 26/41), anemia (56.1%, 23/41), fatigue (43.9%, 18/41) (Table 2). Grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (41.5%, 17/41), thrombocytopenia (34.1%, 14/41), anemia (4.9%, 2/41), febrile neutropenia (2.4%, 1/41), diarrhea (2.4%, 1/41), and elevated triglyceride (2.4%, 1/41) (Table 2). Lung infection of grade ≥3 was observed in one patient only (2.4%, 1/41). Dose reductions of chidamide occurred in 13 patients due to AEs (thrombocytopenia, n=5; neutropenia, n=5; febrile neutropenia, n=1; diarrhea, n=2). Conclusion: The CR-GemOx regimen demonstrates encouraging efficacy in transplant-ineligible R/R DLBCL patients. The common AEs at any grade and grade 3/4 were neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia. Furthermore, lone-term efficacy and safety evaluation in larger cohort is ongoing. Figure 1View largeDownload PPTFigure 1View largeDownload PPT Close modal

MM-547 Multiple Myeloma Response to Therapeutic Protocols: An Iraqi Center Experience

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a clonal proliferation of neoplastic plasma cells producing a monoclonal paraprotein of light and/or heavy chain present in the serum and/or urine. Achieving complete response (CR) is the initial goal of myeloma therapy. The recent therapeutic protocols increase MM CR and survival age. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of the main protocols used in Iraq. A cross-sectional study consecutively included all MM patients between July 2015 and May 2022 at one of the main hematology hospitals in Iraq, the National Hematology Centre, to assess the overall response rate (ORR) which represents ≥very good partial response (VGPR). Of the 52 enrolled patients, the mean (±SD) age was 61.5±11.0 years with a 1.5:1.0 male to female ratio and 30.8% had comorbidities. Two participants (3.8%) died before the end of the study. The presenting features include bone pain and backache (67.3%), followed by a mass and lower limb weakness (1.9% each). The radiological changes were lytic lesions (34.6%) and vertebral wedging (15.4%). The main laboratory features were anemia (69.2%, 10.0±1.5g/dL), IgG kappa paraprotein (51.9 %), and high levels of creatinine (35.3%, 1.4±1.5mg/dL) and calcium (30.8%, 9.5±1.7mg/dL). The available drugs include bortezomib (V), lenalidomide (R), thalidomide (T), cyclophosphamide (C), and dexamethasone (D) were used in triple therapeutic regimens, VRD, VTD, and VCD, with or without autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). The outcomes were assessed for each protocol used. Results and Main Outcomes: Among 52 patients, 50 were evaluated at a median follow-up of 60.5 months. The median survival could not be calculated, since 2 patients died due to renal failure. ORR was achieved in 75% of the patients, and partial response (PR) in 11.5%. When outcomes were stratified by treatment regimens, there were statistically significant differences in ORR; the best was observed among VRD-group (p<000.1). Subsequently, 21 (40.4%) patients received ASCT with non-significant differences in ORR from those without transplants (P>0.05). VRD achieved the best antitumor activity in MM, followed by VTD, and VCD was the least. Triple therapeutic regimens effectiveness showed non-significant differences, whether used alone or with ASCT.

S146: VENETOCLAX IN PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC LYMPHOCYTIC LEUKEMIA WITH 17P DELETION: 6-YEAR FOLLOW-UP AND GENOMIC ANALYSES IN A PIVOTAL PHASE 2 TRIAL

Background: Patients (pts) with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with del(17p) and/or mutated TP53 have adverse prognosis and are a population of interest for improving outcomes. In a pivotal Phase 2 study (NCT01889186) evaluating venetoclax (Ven; a selective oral BCL2 inhibitor) monotherapy in del(17p) CLL (N=158), overall response rate (ORR) was 77% (median time on study, 26.6 mo; Stilgenbauer. J Clin Oncol. 2018;17:1973). Aims: To report final analyses after 5 y from last pt enrolled, including post-hoc subgroup analyses of prognostic markers. Methods: Adults with R/R or previously untreated del(17p) CLL received Ven 400 mg (via ramp-up) orally daily until progressive disease (PD) or intolerance. Main cohort comprised pts with R/R CLL; safety expansion cohort included pts with R/R or untreated CLL. Primary endpoints were ORR (main) and safety (safety expansion). Peripheral blood (PB) and bone marrow (BM) were analyzed pre-Ven for somatic mutations via targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS). Minimal residual disease (MRD) was assessed by flow cytometry, ASO-PCR, and/or clonoSEQ NGS; undetectable MRD (uMRD) is reported at <10−4. Results: In all, 158 pts received Ven (main, n=107; safety expansion, n=51). Data cutoff was 15 December 2020. Pts had median 2 (range, 0−10) prior lines of therapy (LOT); 5 had untreated CLL (first-line [1L]). Common mutations (n/N) were TP53 (113/138 [82%]; 35/113 [31%] had >1), SF3B1 (28/137 [20%]) NOTCH1 (22/137 [16%]), ATM (11/120 [9%]), and BIRC3 (6/120 [5%]); 93/115 (81%) had unmutated IGHV and 118/158 (75%) had ≥20% del(17p). Median time on Ven was 27.4 (range, 0–79.3) mo. At study close, 77 pts were alive; 26 remained on Ven. No new safety signals were observed. With 70 mo median follow-up (f/u), investigator-assessed ORR was 77% (95% CI, 70−84); 21% achieved complete remission (CR)/CR with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi). Median duration of response was 39.3 mo (95% CI, 31.1−50.5); 28% had ongoing response at 60 mo. Of 61 evaluable pts with a PB MRD assessment, 25% had uMRD at ~2 y (24−30 mo). Median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 28.2 mo (95% CI, 23.4−37.6; Figure). Median overall survival (mOS) was 62.5 mo (95% CI, 51.7−NR; 5-y PFS and OS rates, 24% and 52%). Of 5 1L pts, 4 were alive and progression-free. In pts with CR/CRi (n=37), mPFS was 62.2 mo (95% CI, 53.1−NR); in pts with partial remission (PR)/nodular PR (n=85), mPFS was 27.6 mo (95% CI, 22.8−38.0). Overall, 98/158 (62%) pts had PD, including 24/158 (15%) with Richter transformation. Of pts with PD (n=98) or whose disease was refractory to Ven (n=11), 73 received another LOT, most commonly ibrutinib (n=41); mOS from ibrutinib initiation was 28.0 mo. In pts with both del(17p) and TP53 mutation (n=111) vs those with either (n=19), ORR was 75% vs 79%; mPFS was 27.4 vs 22.8 mo (P=.8). In pts with mutated (n=22) vs unmutated IGHV (n=93), mPFS was 40.4 vs 26.9 mo (P=.11). No significant difference in ORR, PFS, or OS was observed in pts with vs without ≥20% del(17p), >1 TP53 mutation, NOTCH1, ATM, or BIRC3 mutations; mPFS was shorter in pts with mutated SF3B1 (n=28) vs without (n=109; 16.4 vs 30.2 mo [P=.0071]). Multivariate analysis is ongoing. Image:Summary/Conclusion: At end of study (median f/u, 70 mo), 48% of pts were alive, 24% were progression-free, and 16% remained on Ven, confirming the long-term activity of Ven in this high-risk population with del(17p) CLL and median 2 prior LOT. Except SF3B1 mutation, other adverse features (eg, >1 TP53 mutation, NOTCH1 mutations, unmutated IGHV) did not influence outcomes with Ven treatment in this cohort.

Patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes among black and white patients with multiple myeloma initiating daratumumab: A real-world chart review study

BackgroundDaratumumab was approved for multiple myeloma (MM) in 2015. While its safety and efficacy are well documented, there is limited real-world information on its use and outcomes in patients of different races. MethodsWe conducted a retrospective chart review of adult patients with MM initiating daratumumab in any line of therapy (LOT) between November 2015 and May 2020. De-identified data were retrieved from 2 US clinical sites; patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and response rate were described for black and white patients, stratified by LOT. Overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and time to next LOT (TTNT) were compared between black and white patients initiating daratumumab in second line (2L) or later, adjusting for age and number of prior lines. ResultsTwo hundred and fifty-two patient charts (89 black, 163 white) were extracted. Black patients were younger at diagnosis (61.7 vs. 67.0 years) and had a similar proportion of females (black: 44.9%, white: 46.6%). Black patients had longer time between MM diagnosis and daratumumab initiation (43.2 vs. 34.1 months) and received more prior LOTs (median 3.0 vs. 2.0). ORR for black and white patients initiating daratumumab in 1L was 100.0%, with very good partial response or better in 75.0% and 66.7%, respectively. Similar trends were observed in 2L and 3L+. There were no significant differences in ORR, PFS, or TTNT between groups. ConclusionDaratumumab had similar clinical outcomes (ORR, PFS, and TTNT) in black and white patients. Black patients initiated daratumumab later in their treatment, suggesting potential discrepancies in access to new MM treatments.

Efficacy of first-line combination therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients (pts) with poor performance status (PS).

320 Background: Immune checkpoint combination therapy (ICI-combo) is the new standard of care for mRCC in first-line setting. However, pts with poor PS (≥2) were excluded from pivotal trials. Hence, the activity and safety of ICI-combo in this group of pts is still unknown. Methods: We performed a multicentre retrospective study of PS≥2 mRCC pts who received ICI-combo, either nivolumab-ipilimumab (NI) or pembrolizumab-axitinib (PA) as first-line treatment between 2017-2021. Patient’s characteristics, clinical outcomes and toxicity were retrospectively reviewed. We analysed overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (G≥3 AEs) in pts treated with NI or PA. The association between LIPI (Lung Immune Prognostic Index) and ORR, PFS and OS was also evaluated. Results: We identified 56 mRCC pts with PS≥2 treated with ICI-combo across 13 institutions. Thirty-six and 20 pts were treated with NI and PA respectively. Median age at diagnosis was 64 (31-83) years, 38 (68%) were male, 16 (29%) had prior nephrectomy and 40 (71%) had synchronous metastatic disease at diagnosis. Respectively, 19 (34%) and 37 (66%) pts were intermediate and poor risk according to IMDC. Fifty pts (89%) were clear cell RCC, and only 4 pts had sarcomatoid features reported. At the time of analysis (median follow-up 11.1 months(mo)) 45% pts were dead. The ORR for the entire cohort was 27%; ORR was numerically higher with PA (42%) than with NI (20%) but did not reach statistical significancy (p=0.157). Median PFS (mPFS) and mOS in the entire cohort were 4.4 mo and 15.9 mo respectively. No significant differences in PFS, OS or the rate of G≥3AEs were seen between the NI and PA groups. Efficacy and toxicity outcomes are described in the table below. No significant differences in OS or PFS according to the IMDC risk score were observed (p=0.818). However, LIPI was significantly associated with OS (poor LIPI: HR=8.18; p=0.004) and PFS (Intermediate LIPI: HR=2.4; p=0.048 and poor LIPI: HR=8.59; p&lt;0.001). LIPI was predictive of response in patients treated with NI (p=0.024). Conclusions: We report the first cohort of PS≥2 mRCC pts treated with ICI-combo in first-line setting. No significant differences in ORR, PFS or OS were seen between NI and PA. LIPI was significantly associated with both OS and PFS, and was predictive of ORR in the NI group. Prospective real-world studies are needed to confirm these results.[Table: see text]

Impact of Corticosteroids on Efficacy of BCMA Targeted CAR-T Therapy in Multiple Myeloma

Impact of Corticosteroids on Efficacy of BCMA Targeted CAR-T Therapy in Multiple Myeloma

DREAMM-2: Indirect Comparisons of Belantamab Mafodotin vs. Selinexor + Dexamethasone and Standard of Care Treatments in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma

IntroductionSingle-agent belantamab mafodotin (belamaf; BLENREP) demonstrated deep and durable responses in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and ≥ 3 prior lines of therapy, including an immunomodulatory agent, proteasome inhibitor, and anti-CD38 antibody (DREAMM-2; NCT03525678).MethodsAt the time of this study, STORM Part 2, NCT02336815 (selinexor plus low-dose dexamethasone; sel + dex) was systematically identified as the only feasible comparator to the DREAMM-2 cohort. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) evaluated efficacy and safety of belamaf (2.5 mg/kg; n = 97) versus sel + dex (80 mg + 20 mg, respectively; n = 123). Populations were weighted for clinically validated effect modifiers and prognostic factors. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DoR), overall response rate (ORR), time to response (TTR), and safety. The relative efficacy of belamaf versus standard of care (SoC) on OS was estimated by a Bucher indirect treatment comparison using the MAIC-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for OS of belamaf (DREAMM-2) versus sel + dex (STORM Part 2) and a HR adjusted for refractoriness to carfilzomib and high-risk cytogenetics of sel + dex (STORM) versus SoC (MAMMOTH).ResultsBelamaf demonstrated improved OS (HR 0.53; 95% confidence interval 0.34, 0.83; p = 0.005) and DoR (0.41; 0.21, 0.83; p = 0.013) versus sel + dex. There were no statistically significant differences in ORR, TTR, and PFS. Belamaf had a favorable safety profile for most evaluable hematologic (any-grade, Grade 3–4) and non-hematologic (any-grade) adverse events versus sel + dex. Significantly improved OS was observed with belamaf versus SoC (0.29; 0.16, 0.54; p < 0.001).ConclusionSingle-agent belamaf represents a new treatment option for triple-class refractory patients with RRMM.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01884-7.

Clinical Outcomes of Decitabine Treatment for Patients with Lower-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome By the International Prognostic Scoring System

IntroductionDecitabine has shown clinical benefits in patients with International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) intermediate (INT)-2 or high risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), but the benefits have not been well defined in patients with lower-risk disease group (IPSS low or INT-1). Recently, it was proposed that the prognosis for patients with lower-risk disease is heterogeneous, with a substantial fraction of these patients having poor survival. Therefore, we classified IPSS lower-risk MDS patients using the Lower-Risk Prognostic Scoring System (LR-PSS) and then identified clinical outcomes after decitabine treatment in each subgroup.MethodsTwo observational studies (DIVA [NCT01041846] and DRAMA [NCT01400633]) on the effectiveness of decitabine treatment in patients with IPSS INT-1, 2, or high risk MDS were previously conducted. This analysis included patients with IPSS INT-1 risk disease from these two studies, and the patients were classified into one of the LR-PSS categories (category 1, 2, or 3) classifying patients by clinical variables such as cytogenetic, age, hemoglobin, platelet levels, and bone marrow blast percentage, so that patients with higher scores would be classified into higher risk categories. Patients in each LR-PSS category were divided by response or non-response to decitabine treatment. Overall response rate (ORR) included complete response (CR), partial response, marrow CR with or without hematologic improvement (HI), and stable disease with HI by the modified IWG 2006 response criteria. The overall survival (OS) in each subgroup was calculated and we analyzed differences in survival by response in each category group.ResultsA total of 130 patients were included in this analysis: 12 patients (9.2%) in LR-PSS category 1, 65 (50.0%) in category 2, and 53 (40.8%) in category 3. Patients in LR-PSS category 3 were older, predominantly male, and had more comorbidities. Overall refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia (RCMD) was the most common WHO subtype (53/130, 40.8%), but there was a trend toward more patients with refractory anemia with excess of blasts (RAEB-1) in LR-PSS category 3. Transfusion dependency at baseline was more common in LR-PSS category 3. ORR was observed in 74 patients (56.9%) after decitabine treatment: there was no significant difference in ORR between the LR-PSS groups (category 1, 58.3%; category 2, 56.9%; and category 3, 56.6%, P = 0.9940). Unlike patients in category 1 or 2, those in category 3 showed a significant difference in OS between responders and non-responders (P = 0.0015). A higher platelet count at baseline (≥50 x 109/L) was a favorable predictor of ORR (odds ratio, 2.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 4.84) and a patient with lower percentage of bone marrow blasts at baseline (<4%) showed significantly lower ORR (odds ratio, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.56). The presence of comorbidities was the only variable significantly associated with OS in Cox proportional hazards regression model (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.129 to 0.922).ConclusionsDecitabine treatment was effective in patients with lower-risk disease and showed a survival benefit in patients with lower-risk MDS classified as LR-PSS category 3 who responded to treatment. DisclosuresNo relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy versus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

e21152 Background: Chemotherapy in combination with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor or bevacizumab have demonstrated superior efficacy to chemotherapy in the first-line treatment for non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NS-NSCLC). However, there has been no randomized study comparing PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy (immune-chemo) with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (bev-chemo). Thus, we performed this network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of immune-chemo and bev-chemo as first-line treatment for NS-NSCLC. Methods: The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, and conference abstracts until Oct 2020. Bayesian NMA with fixed effect consistency model was applied to estimate hazard ratio (HR) and Odds ratio (OR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Results: 15 RCTs involving 6541 advanced NS-NSCLC patients were eligible for analysis. For OS, immune-chemo (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64-0.79) and bev-chemo (0.87, 0.79-0.95) significantly prolonged survival compared with chemotherapy. For PFS, immune-chemo (0.58, 0.53-0.62) and bev-chemo (0.66, 0.61-0.71) were significantly superior to chemotherapy. For ORR, immune-chemo (2.42, 1.93-3.08) and bev-chemo (2.27, 1.75-2.92) were associated with better benefits than chemotherapy. However, immune-chemo (1.61, 1.08-2.35) and bev-chemo (1.83, 1.08-2.90) increased grade ≥3 TRATEs compared with chemotherapy. The results of Bayesian NMAs shown that immune-chemo (PFS: 0.88[0.80-0.97]; OS: 0.81[0.72-0.92]) was associated with better outcomes than bev-chemo, while there were no significant differences in ORR and the risk of grade ≥3 TRATEs (Table). Conclusions: Immune-chemo and bev-chemo are superior to chemotherapy in first-line treatment of NS-NSCLC. Immune-chemo could significantly improve clinical outcomes compared with bev-chemo without higher severe TRAEs. [Table: see text]