Abstract: Following resection of pancreatic acinar cell carcinoma (PACC) distant recurrence remains high. We utilized the national cancer database (NCDB) to evaluate the role of systemic therapy in early‐stage resected PACC. Methods We queried the NCDB registry from 2004 to 2015 for patients with pathologic stage I‐IIB PACC. For each stage, patients who underwent surgery alone (SA) were compared to patients who received systemic and/or radiation therapy in addition to surgery (surgery + therapy [S + T]). Results A total of 271 patients (101 pI, 81 pIIA, and 89 pIIB) were analyzed. Of all clinically node positive patients ( n  = 41), the majority ( n  = 32, 78%) had node‐positive disease at resection (pIIB). SA was performed in 112 patients (41.3%), whereas 159 (58.7%) patients received S + T. There was no difference in overall survival (OS) between S + T and SA with respect to pI or pIIA disease. In pIIB disease, S + T was associated with improved OS compared to SA (34.9 vs. 16.9 months, p  = 0.031). Single‐agent chemotherapy was associated with improved OS for pIIB disease when compared to SA (hazard ratio: 0.38, 95% confidence interval: 0.16, 0.83). Conclusion In resectable PACC, the survival benefit of adjuvant therapy is limited to pathologic stage IIB disease. This benefit is evident even in patients treated with single‐agent chemotherapy.

Abstract: Clinical outcomes and predictors of survival in patients with newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) treated in the rituximab era (2000–2015) at 12 US academic centers were assessed to identify determinants of survival across age groups. Objectives were to characterize and compare practice patterns, outcomes and prognostic factors for survival in younger patients (age  〈  65) and older patients (age ≥ 65 years). Among 1162 patients included, 697 were younger and 465 were older. In younger patients, 2‐year progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 79% and 92% respectively; blastoid histology, ECOG ≥ 2, and lack of maintenance rituximab (MR) remained statistically relevant to poor OS on univariate analysis (UVA) and multivariate analysis (MVA). In older patients, 2‐year PFS and OS rates were 67% and 86% respectively; lack of maintenance rituximab remained significantly associated with inferior PFS and OS on UVA and MVA ( p   〈  0.001). Two‐year PFS rates were 79%, and 67% and 2‐year OS rates were 92% and 86% for ages 〈 65 and ≥ 65 respectively ( p   〈  0.001). First‐line high‐dose cytarabine exposure and/or MR lessened the negative impact of age on survival. Taken collectively, survival outcomes for older patients remain inferior to those of younger patients in the rituximab era. However, maintenance rituximab and potentially high‐dose cytarabine‐based induction can mitigate the negative impact of age on survival.

Abstract: Although an expanding array of effective treatments has resulted in recent improvement in survival of patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), outcomes remain heterogeneous, and identification of prognostic factors remains a priority. We assessed the prognostic impact of time to progression of disease (POD) after first-line therapy among 455 patients with relapsed MCL. Patients were categorized by duration of first remission as PRF/POD6, defined as progressive disease during induction or POD within 6 months of diagnosis (n = 65; 14%); POD6-24, defined as POD between 6 and 24 months after diagnosis (n = 153; 34%); and POD & gt;24, defined as POD & gt;24 months after diagnosis (n = 237; 53%). The median overall survival from POD (OS2) was 1.3 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9-2.4) for patients with PRF/POD6, 3 years (95% CI, 2-6.8) for those with POD6-24, and 8 years (95% CI, 6.2-NR) for those with POD & gt;24. Median OS2 was inferior in patients with early POD (defined as PRF/POD6 or POD6-24) after both intensive and less intensive frontline treatment. The prognostic performance of time until POD was replicated in an independent cohort of 245 patients with relapsed MCL, with median OS2 of 0.3 years (95% CI, 0.1-0.5) for PRF/POD6, 0.8 years (95% CI, 0.6-0.9) for POD6-24, and 2.4 years (95% CI 2.1-2.7) for POD & gt;24. Early POD is associated with inferior OS2 in patients with relapsed MCL, identifying a high-risk population for future prospective studies.

Abstract: To report the activity of venetoclax in patients with relapsed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), we identified 81 patients treated with venetoclax monotherapy (n = 50, 62%) or in combination with a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) (n = 16, 20%), an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (n = 11, 14%), or other active agents at 12 US academic medical centers. Patients had high-risk disease features including Ki67  & gt;30% (61%), blastoid/pleomorphic histology (29%), complex karyotype (34%), and TP53 alterations (49%), and received a median of 3 prior treatments including BTKis in 91%. Venetoclax alone or in combination resulted in an overall response rate (ORR) of 40% and median progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of 3.7 and 12.5 months, respectively. The receipt of ≤3 prior treatments was associated with higher odds of response to venetoclax in a univariable analysis. In a multivariable analysis, having a high-risk Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index score before receiving venetoclax and disease relapse or progression within 24 months of diagnosis were associated with inferior OS whereas the use of venetoclax in combination was associated with superior OS. Although most patients (61%) had low risk for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS), 12.3% of patients developed TLS despite the implementation of several mitigation strategies. In conclusion, venetoclax resulted in good ORR but short PFS in patients with MCL who are at high risk, and may have a better role in earlier lines of treatment and/or in conation with other active agents. TLS remains an important risk in patients with MCL who initiate treatment with venetoclax.

Abstract: In the current study, the authors perform a retrospective analysis of overall survival (OS) and progression‐free survival (PFS) among patients with non–small cell lung cancer who were treated with single‐agent immune checkpoint blockade between 2013 and 2018. The data indicate similar outcomes between Black and White patients with regard to OS, PFS, and the rate of immune‐related adverse events. Large studies are needed to make these findings more generalizable.

Abstract: Patients with cancer are at higher risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding, in turn complicating anticoagulant therapy. An added complexity is the toxicity profile of agents used to treat certain cancers, namely the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), which are associated with both thromboembolism and hemorrhages. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether patients taking concurrent VEGF TKI and therapeutic anticoagulant were at higher risk for bleeding compared with patients taking VEGF TKI alone. Materials and Methods This was a single-center, retrospective chart review of patients who underwent treatment with a VEGF TKI with or without anticoagulant. The primary outcome included comparison of major bleeding rates between groups. Secondary outcomes included comparison of composite major and minor bleed rates and assessment of VTE incidence and recurrence among patients treated with a VEGF TKI and VEGF TKI plus anticoagulant, respectively. Results A total of 184 and 74 patients were included in the VEGF TKI alone and VEGF TKI + anticoagulant groups, respectively. Major bleeding events occurred in 6 of 184 patients (3.3%) and 6 of 74 patients (8.1%), respectively (p = .095). Composite major and minor bleeding events occurred in 22 of 184 (13.6%) and 17 of 74 (23%), respectively (p = .026). A total of 26 of 258 patients (10.1%) experienced a VTE event while taking a VEGF TKI, and 1 of 26 (3.8%) experienced a recurrent VTE event while taking a VEGF TKI plus anticoagulant. Conclusion Patients who received concomitant VEGF TKI plus anticoagulant had increased incidence of bleeding, although prospective studies are needed to further explore this association. Implications for Practice The current study showed that use of concomitant vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGF TKI) and therapeutic anticoagulation was associated with an increased risk of composite bleeding events, although at comparable rates between patients treated with VEGF TKI plus direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) versus VEGF TKI plus non-DOAC anticoagulant. This suggests that when anticoagulation is indicated in a patient receiving a VEGF TKI, the novel DOACs may be a safe alternative to historical anticoagulants (warfarin and enoxaparin). These results fill a gap in the literature and will help guide treatment decisions for patients requiring concurrent VEGF TKI and anticoagulation.

Abstract: Several immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved for the treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC). There are limited biomarkers for ICI-treated patients with UC. We investigated the association between body composition and clinical outcomes in ICI-treated UC patients. Materials and Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of 70 ICI-treated patients with advanced UC at Winship Cancer Institute from 2015 to 2020. Baseline computed tomography images within 2 months of ICI initiation were collected at mid-L3 and muscle and fat compartments (subcutaneous, intermuscular, and visceral) were segmented using SliceOMatic v5.0 (TomoVision, Magog, Canada). A prognostic body composition risk score (high: 0–1, intermediate: 2–3, or low-risk: 4) was created based on the β coefficient from the multivariate Cox model (MVA) following best-subset variable selection. Our body composition risk score was skeletal muscle index (SMI) + 2 × attenuated skeletal muscle (SM) mean + visceral fat index (VFI). Concordance statistics (C-statistics) were used to quantify the discriminatory magnitude of the predictive model. Results Most patients (70%) were men and the majority received ICIs in the second- (46%) or third-line (21%) setting. High-risk patients had significantly shorter overall survival (OS; hazard ratio [HR], 6.72; p  & lt; .001), progression-free survival (HR, 5.82; p  & lt; .001), and lower chance of clinical benefit (odds ratio [OR], 0.02; p = .003) compared with the low-risk group in MVA. The C-statistics for our body composition risk group and myosteatosis analyses were higher than body mass index for all clinical outcomes. Conclusion Body composition variables such as SMI, SM mean, and VFI may be prognostic and predictive of clinical outcomes in ICI-treated patients with UC. Larger, prospective studies are warranted to validate this hypothesis-generating data. Implications for Practice This study developed a prognostic body composition risk scoring system using radiographic biomarkers for patients with bladder cancer treated with immunotherapy. The study found that the high-risk patients had significantly worse clinical outcomes. Notably, the study's model was better at predicting outcomes than body mass index. Importantly, these results suggest that radiographic measures of body composition should be considered for inclusion in updated prognostic models for patients with urothelial carcinoma treated with immunotherapy. These findings are useful for practicing oncologists in the academic or community setting, particularly given that baseline imaging is routine for patients starting on treatment with immunotherapy.

Abstract: Proton therapy (PRT) is increasingly utilized for pediatric brain tumors to reduce radiation associated treatment effects, but there is a lack of data evaluating PRT in pediatric high-grade glioma (pHGG). The purpose of this analysis is to report patterns of care and clinical outcomes for pHGG patients treated with PRT and enrolled in the prospective Pediatric Proton/Photon Consortium Registry (PPCR). METHODS Fifty-five pHGG participants treated with PRT were enrolled in the PPCR between Jan 2013 and Aug 2020. Progression free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were calculated according to the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate analyses were performed using Cox proportional hazards model with Firth’s penalization. RESULTS Among 49 patients with complete data, the median age was 12, the majority of patients were male (29), white (35), and non-Hispanic/Latino (41). Histology was grade IV (37), grade III (10) or HGG not specified (8). Resection was gross-total (24), near-total (4), or sub-total/biopsy (17). Six patients received prior RT. The median RT dose was 57.6 Gy (RBE) starting a median of 33.5 days after surgery. 39 patients received chemotherapy. The most common acute treatment toxicities were alopecia (36), fatigue (34), radiation dermatitis (22), nausea/vomiting (19), and headache (19). Median follow-up was 3.14 years (95% CI 1.62-3.97). At 3 years, PFS (95% CI) was 35.5% (20.8-50.6%) and OS was 55.6% (38-70%). Median PFS and OS are 1.6 (1.2-3.1) and 3.6 (1.6-NA) years, respectively. Higher radiation dose was associated with greater PFS (HR 0.97 (0.94-1.01), p=0.059) and OS (HR 0.95 (0.93-0.99), p=0.006). Patients ≤ 3 years at diagnosis (n=8) had 3-year PFS/OS of 72.9%/87.5% vs. 27.8%/49.4% for older patients (p=0.068/0.089, respectively). CONCLUSION These are the first published data with PRT for pHGG. Clinical outcomes are comparable to historical data with photon therapy. Additional analysis of treatment associated toxicity and patient quality-of-life are warranted.

Abstract: Background: Early progression of disease (POD) in patients (pts) with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) following intensive frontline treatment has been associated with inferior survival (Dietrich et al Ann Oncol 2014 and Visco et al Br J Haematol 2019), but the optimal time point to define early POD and the predictive significance of early POD following less intensive frontline treatment is not well established. We compare outcomes after all frontline treatments in a large MCL cohort categorized by time to progression and describe outcomes by class of second line treatment for pts with primary refractory disease. Methods: Clinical and outcome data for MCL pts treated between 2000 and 2017 were collected from 12 US centers. Overall survival (OS), defined from time of 1st progression, and secondary progression free survival (PFS2), defined from 1st progression to 2nd progression or death, were estimated by Kaplan-Meier and compared by log-rank test. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed using Cox proportional hazards models for OS. 95% confidence intervals were calculated for all estimates and displayed in square brackets. We defined intensive treatment as high dose cytarabine in frontline therapy and/or autologous stem cell transplant in 1st remission. Pts were categorized into three groups: (a) refractory disease to frontline therapy or POD within 6 months of frontline therapy was termed primary refractory (PRF); (b) POD between 6 to 24 months of therapy was termed POD24 and (c) POD beyond 24 months was termed POD & gt;24. Salvage therapy was categorized as chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) for pts treated with CIT alone, BTK inhibitor (BTKi) for pts treated with BTKi single agent or in combination, and lenalidomide / bortezomib for pts treated with one or both agent +/- anti-CD20 therapy. Results: Of 1,168 pts with MCL, 457 pts had relapsed and were included in this analysis. The median age was 62, 77% were male, and ECOG PS was 0/1 in 94%. Median follow-up was 2.6 years (yr) after first progression. The most common induction regimens were R-HyperCVAD (26%), R-CHOP (24%), bendamustine and rituximab (19%), and R-M-CHOP (10%). Frontline treatment was intensive in 54%. Sixty five pts (14%) were PRF, 153 (34%) had POD24, and 239 (53%) had POD & gt;24. Additional baseline characteristics and comparison between groups are summarized in Table 1. The median OS was 1.3 yr [0.9-2.4] for PRF pts, 3 yrs [2-6.8] for POD 24, and 8 yrs [6.2-not reached (NR)] for POD & gt;24 (p & lt;0.0001). Comparing median PFS2 by time to POD, median PFS2 was 1 yr [0.4-1.3] for PRF, 1 yr [0.8-1.4] for POD24 and 2.3 yrs [1.8-3.2] for POD & gt;24 pts (p & lt;0.0001). Among PRF pts, median OS was 0.9 yr [0.4-3] for intensive treatment pts versus 2.0 yrs [0.9-4.5] among less intensive treatment (p=0.33). Among POD24 pts, median PFS2 was 0.8 yr [0.5-1] following intensive vs 2 yrs [0.8-2.9] with less intensive treatment (p=0.0003); likewise OS was shorter after intensive vs less intensive treatment, median 2 yrs [1.1-3.4] vs 6.8 yrs [3.1-9.7] (p=0.05). Both PRF and POD24 were associated with inferior OS on univariable analysis (Table 2) and remained associated with inferior OS on multivariable analysis independent of MIPI score and B symptoms (sx); HR 7.7 [3.9-15.1] for PRF and HR 2.5 [1.4-4.5] for POD24, HR 2.5 [1.4-4.5] for high MIPI score, and HR 1.3 [0.8-2.2] for B sx. Among pts with PRF MCL, median PFS2 and OS were 1.2 [0.5-2.3] and 2.4 [0.7-4.5] yrs for BTKi (n=21), 0.5 [0.2-2.3] and 1.1 [0.5-NR] yrs for CIT (n=22), and 0.3 [0.1-0.6] and 1.9 [0.1-2] yrs for lenalidomide / bortezomib (n=8) as 2nd line therapy. Two pts with PRF MCL received no further therapy and both died within one month of POD. Conclusions: Time to relapse is predictive of outcome in pts with MCL and outcomes with current salvage therapies are poor for pts with relapse within 6 months of frontline therapy. Of currently available second line therapies, BTKi were associated with improved PFS2 in refractory pts. Outcomes are particularly poor for pts who receive intensive induction therapies yet still relapse early, representing a population at high risk for early mortality related to MCL. Novel treatment approaches should be evaluated in this population, including CAR-T cell therapy, and attempts to improve risk stratification at diagnosis and develop improved therapies for high-risk pts should continue. Disclosures Maddocks: Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kolla:Amgen: Equity Ownership. Bachanova:Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; GT Biopharma: Research Funding. Gerson:Abbvie: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria. Hill:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Martin:Karyopharm: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy. Danilov:Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Travel Reimbursement , Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; MEI: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Grover:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Karmali:Takeda, BMS: Other: Research Funding to Institution; Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Ghosh:AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; SGN: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Forty Seven Inc: Research Funding. Park:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rafael Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; G1 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Epperla:Verastem Oncology: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Hamadani:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Otsuka: Research Funding; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kahl:BeiGene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Flowers:Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; Optimum Rx: Consultancy; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy. Cohen:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; Hutchison: Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding.