Search

PURPOSE: A validated risk model with inputs of pretreatment sodium and albumin can identify patients at risk for hospitalization during cancer treatment. We evaluated how the model compares with risk estimates from treating oncologists. METHODS: We evaluated the 30-day risk of hospitalization or death in patients starting palliative-intent systemic therapy for solid tumor malignancy. For each patient, we prospectively recorded categorical estimates of 30-day hospitalization risk (bottom third, middle third, top third) generated by a treating oncologist and by the two-variable model; a third hybrid risk estimate represented a composite of the oncologist and model risk assessments. We analyzed the agreement of oncologist and model-based risk estimates and compared discrimination, sensitivity, and specificity of each risk assessment method. RESULTS: We collected oncologist, model, and hybrid estimates of hospitalization risk for 120 patients. The 30-day rate of hospitalization or death was 20%. There was minimal agreement between oncologist and model risk estimates (weighted kappa = 0.27). The c-statistic (a measure of discrimination) was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.57 to 0.81) for the clinician assessment, 0.77 for the model assessment (CI, 0.67 to 0.86; P = .24 compared with the oncologist assessment), and 0.79 for the hybrid assessment (CI, 0.69 to 0.90; P = .007 compared with the oncologist assessment). Sensitivity and specificity of the high-risk categorization did not differ significantly between the oncologist and model assessments; the hybrid assessment was significantly more sensitive ( P = .02) and less specific ( P = .03) than the oncologist assessment. CONCLUSION: A model with inputs of pretreatment sodium and albumin improves oncologists' predictions of hospitalization risk during cancer treatment.

Supplemental Table 1 and Supplemental Figure Legends

Purpose:Clinical trials of venetoclax reported negligible rates of clinical tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) when using an extended dose escalation schedule. We aimed to understand TLS prophylaxis, rates of select adverse events (AE), and impact of dosing modifications in routine clinical practice.Experimental Design:This retrospective cohort study included 297 CLL venetoclax-treated patients outside of clinical trials in academic and community centers. Demographics, baseline disease characteristics, venetoclax dosing, TLS risk and prophylaxis, and AEs were collected.Results:The group was 69% male, 96% had relapsed/refractory CLL, 45% had deletion chromosome 17p, 84% had unmutated IGHV, 80% received venetoclax monotherapy, and median age was 67. TLS risk was categorized as low (40%), intermediate (32%), or high (28%), and 62% had imaging prior to venetoclax initiation. Clinical TLS occurred in 2.7% of patients and laboratory TLS occurred in 5.7%. Pre-venetoclax TLS risk group and creatinine clearance independently predict TLS development in multivariable analysis. Grade 3/4 AEs included neutropenia (39.6%), thrombocytopenia (29.2%), infection (25%), neutropenic fever (7.9%), and diarrhea (6.9%). Twenty-two patients (7.4%) discontinued venetoclax due to an AE. Progression-free survival was similar regardless of number of dose interruptions, length of dose interruption, and stable venetoclax dose.Conclusions:These data provide insights into current use of venetoclax in clinical practice, including TLS rates observed in clinical practice. We identified opportunities for improved adherence to TLS risk stratification and prophylaxis, which may improve safety.

Immunotherapy has improved outcomes in many malignancies, most notably in melanoma, lung cancer, and bladder cancer. Understanding the side effects associated with these medications is an important part of managing our patients. Although fatigue, rash, and diarrhea are commonly reported side effects, it is important to be cognizant of rarer ones, such as neuropathy. Amongst the different neurological toxicities that have been reported in the literature, Guillain-Barré-like neuropathies are quite rare. However, the occurrence of such neuropathies in a patient can be life threatening. The problem this poses in treating cancers such as melanoma is that it eliminates an effective class of medication available to the patient, which can ultimately affect their prognosis. We present a case of a 65-year-old female with unresectable metastatic melanoma who developed Guillain-Barré-like neuropathy after two doses of pembrolizumab. Her clinical course was complicated by three separate hospitalizations over 3 months due to recurring bouts of neuropathy, which resulted in a significant decline in performance status and delay in subsequent treatment of her melanoma. Her prolonged recovery eventually resulted in progression of her melanoma nearly 1 year later, while off therapy. Instead of discontinuing immunotherapy completely, she agreed to a re-challenge with ipilimumab. After one dose, her melanoma regressed and continues to show a sustained response nearly 1 year after treatment without any signs of relapse in her neuropathy. Guillain-Barré toxicity resulting from immune checkpoint inhibition poses a difficult challenge to an oncologist who is determining the next line of treatment for patients with unresectable metastatic melanoma that have progressed while off therapy and who have no targetable mutations. Our case raises the question of whether a re-challenge with a different class of immunotherapy agent is a reasonable option.

Purpose: Clinical trials of venetoclax reported negligible rates of clinical tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) when using an extended dose escalation schedule. We aimed to understand TLS prophylaxis, rates of select adverse events (AE), and impact of dosing modifications in routine clinical practice. Experimental Design: This retrospective cohort study included 297 CLL venetoclax-treated patients outside of clinical trials in academic and community centers. Demographics, baseline disease characteristics, venetoclax dosing, TLS risk and prophylaxis, and AEs were collected. Results: The group was 69% male, 96% had relapsed/refractory CLL, 45% had deletion chromosome 17p, 84% had unmutated IGHV, 80% received venetoclax monotherapy, and median age was 67. TLS risk was categorized as low (40%), intermediate (32%), or high (28%), and 62% had imaging prior to venetoclax initiation. Clinical TLS occurred in 2.7% of patients and laboratory TLS occurred in 5.7%. Pre-venetoclax TLS risk group and creatinine clearance independently predict TLS development in multivariable analysis. Grade 3/4 AEs included neutropenia (39.6%), thrombocytopenia (29.2%), infection (25%), neutropenic fever (7.9%), and diarrhea (6.9%). Twenty-two patients (7.4%) discontinued venetoclax due to an AE. Progression-free survival was similar regardless of number of dose interruptions, length of dose interruption, and stable venetoclax dose. Conclusions: These data provide insights into current use of venetoclax in clinical practice, including TLS rates observed in clinical practice. We identified opportunities for improved adherence to TLS risk stratification and prophylaxis, which may improve safety.

Venetoclax (VEN) is approved for relapsed/refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) as monotherapy (VENmono) or in combination with rituximab. Whether VEN plus anti-CD20 (VENcombo) is superior to VENmono is unknown. We conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort analysis comparing 321 CLL patients treated with VENmono vs VENcombo across the United States and the United Kingdom. We examined demographics, baseline characteristics, dosing, adverse events, response rates, and outcomes. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), estimated by Kaplan-Meier method, in patients treated with VENmono vs VENcombo. Univariate and bivariate analyses were performed with COX regression. Three hundred twenty-one CLL patients were included (3 median prior treatments, 78% prior ibrutinib). The overall response rates (ORRs) were similar (VENmono, 81% ORR, 34% complete remission [CR] vs VENcombo, 84% ORR, 32% CR). With a median follow-up of 13.4 months, no differences in PFS and OS were observed between the groups. In unadjusted analyses, the hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS and OS for VENmono vs VENcombo were HR 1.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6-1.8; P = .7) and HR 1.2 (95% CI, 0.6-2.3; P = .5), respectively. When adjusting for differences between the cohorts, the addition of an anti-CD20 antibody in combination with VEN did not impact PFS (HR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.5-2.0; P = .9) or OS (HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.4-2.6; P = .8). We demonstrate comparable efficacy between VENmono and VENcombo in a heavily pretreated, high-risk, retrospective cohort, in terms of both response data and survival outcomes. Prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.

1530 Background: Patients receiving treatment for advanced cancer are at substantial risk for unplanned hospitalization. A validated two-variable risk model can identify patients at increased risk for hospitalization. However, little is known about how model-based estimates of hospitalization risk compare with assessments of treating clinicians. Methods: We identified patients initiating a new line of systemic therapy for advanced non-hematologic cancer. For each patient, we assigned three categorical estimates of 30-day hospitalization risk. The first risk estimate was generated by a validated two-variable risk prediction model with inputs of pretreatment plasma sodium and albumin (PMID: 30995122); continuous risk scores were converted to risk tertiles. We solicited a second risk estimate by real-time survey of a treating oncology clinician; clinicians were instructed to estimate hospitalization risk as low, intermediate, or high, as compared with other patients. A third hybrid risk estimate retained the highest risk category from either the clinician or model risk assessment. We describe the agreement of clinician and model-based estimates of 30-day hospitalization risk, and we compare the sensitivity and specificity of clinician, model, and hybrid high-risk assessments, using McNemar’s test. We compared discrimination of the three risk estimates via the area under the ROC curve (AUC). Results: We identified 104 patients with valid clinician and model hospitalization risk estimates and complete 30-day follow-up. The most common cancer type was lung cancer (27%), the median age was 68 years, and 62% of patients were male. 30-day hospitalization occurred in 21 patients (20.2%). There was moderate to poor agreement between clinician and model categorical estimates of hospitalization risk (weighted kappa = 0.245). The proportion of patients identified as high-risk by the clinician, model, and hybrid assessments was 15.4%, 26.0%, and 33.7%. Sensitivity and specificity of the high-risk categorization for 30-day hospitalization were 38% and 90% for the clinician assessment, 57% and 82% for the model assessment (NSS for comparison with clinician assessment), and 76% and 77% for the hybrid assessment (greater sensitivity [p = 0.008] and lesser specificity [p = 0.001] than clinician assessment). The AUC values for the clinician, model, and hybrid assessments were 0.674, 0.757, and 0.764, respectively. Conclusions: Compared with the estimate of a treating clinician, a two-variable risk model exhibited similar sensitivity and specificity for 30-day hospitalization risk. A hybrid risk assessment incorporating information from the risk model significantly improved on the sensitivity of the clinician risk assessment. Future research should test strategies to prevent hospitalizations by targeting interventions to high-risk patients.

Breast cancer (BC) is the second most common cause of brain metastasis in the United States. Compared to whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT), treatment with gamma-knife radiosurgery (GKRS) offers a better chance at neurocognitive preservation. The goal of our retrospective study is to report the overall survival (OS) in patients receiving GKRS and to identify factors that improve survival outcomes. The records of 80 patients with primary BC treated with GKRS at the Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center between 2000 and 2013 were reviewed. OS was calculated from the date of first GKRS treatment. Other factors studied were age, Karnofsky performance status (KPS), tumor subtype, having WBRT and/or surgical resection pre- or post-GKRS, and number of brain metastases treated with GKRS. Median age was 56.2 years. OS from first GKRS was 13.1 months (95% CI 7.6–21.9). On univariate analysis, improved survival was associated with HER-2 subtype (p = 0.026), KPS score > 80 (p = 0.009), and good control of systemic disease at time of GKRS (p = 0.020). Multivariable analysis detected a significantly longer survival with HER-2 positivity (HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06–0.76, p = 0.017) and a strong trend in patients with craniotomy prior to GKRS (HR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01–1.11, p = 0.06). GKRS is a promising therapy for treating brain metastasis from BC, particularly in those with HER-2 positivity and high-performance scores even in those patients with > 5 brain metastases. Furthermore, GKRS may also be a useful adjunct to surgical resection in such patients. High rates of neurological death remain from BC brain metastases; however, and need further investigation.

Introduction: Venetoclax (Ven), an oral BCL2 inhibitor, is approved for the treatment (tx) of relapsed/refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Ven is generally well tolerated, and side effects observed in clinical trials have been consistent with other CLL tx. Clinical trials using the approved dose escalation schedule report negligible rates of clinical tumor lysis syndrome (TLS). We aimed to understand rates of select adverse events (AEs) including cytopenias, infections, and TLS in CLL patients (pts) treated with Ven in community and academic settings. To do so, we examined 297 pts with CLL who received Ven, either alone or paired, in this multicenter, international study. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Ven treated pts with CLL across at 15 academic (n=169) and 51 community (n=128) centers outside of the clinical trial setting. This study represents a collaboration between US centers, CLL Collaborative Study of Real World Evidence (CORE), and UK CLL Forum. Demographics, baseline disease characteristics, Ven dosing, TLS risk (per FDA Ven label) and prophylaxis, and AEs were collected. Lab vs. clinical TLS was defined by Howard criteria. PFS was estimated by Kaplan Meier methodology. All comparisons were descriptive. Results: Of the 297 pts examined, median age at Ven initiation was 67 (range 37-91). The group was 69% male, 96% had R/R CLL, and 45% had del17p. Baseline characteristics stratified by practice setting are included in Table 1. 80% received Ven as monotherapy while 20% received it paired with another agent (anti-CD20 mAb (75%), ibrutinib (8.5%), other (16.5%)). All pts were treated outside of clinical trials. During dose escalation, 81% achieved a 400 mg dose and 65% maintained 400 mg following escalation (cyp3A4 use unknown). TLS risk was low in 40%, intermediate (int) in 32%, and high risk in 28%. CT scan prior to Ven initiation was performed in 62%. At least one hospitalization occurred for 56% of low, 80% of int, and 88% of high risk pts (63% of the total cohort). Table 1 describes the distribution of TLS risk and frequency of hospitalizations in academic, community centers. TLS prophylactic measures were available for a subset of pts. Allopurinol was used for 91% (n=68/75) of low, 93% (n=52/56) of int, and 94% (n=29/31) of pts at high risk for TLS. Rasburicase was used for 27% (n=28/102) of low, 42% (n=34/81) of int, and 72% (n=57/79) of high risk pts. Normal saline was used in 85% (n=62/73) of low, 88% (n=49/56) of int, and 97% (n=30/31) of high risk pts. TLS occurred in 8.4% of pts (n=25/297). Three lab and 2 clinical events occurred in low risk pts, 7 lab and 3 clinical events in int risk pts, and 7 lab and 3 clinical events in high risk pts. Of pts with TLS, 1 has discontinued Ven. Of pts with clinical TLS, all were hospitalized, received allopurinol and normal saline, and 28% received rasburicase. 72% with TLS had creatinine clearance Select AEs were neutropenia (ANC7 stools/day) 6.9%. For the subset who received Ven paired, AEs were not increased: 35% neutropenia, 29% thrombocytopenia, 22% infection, 6.3% neutropenic fever, and 6.4% diarrhea. TLS was observed in 3.4% of pts who received Ven paired vs. 9.3% who received Ven monotherapy. 29% pts required ≥1 dose reduction and 32% had ≥1 dose interruption. Median length of dose interruption was 7 days (range 1 - 132). 22 pts (7.4%) discontinued Ven due to an AE. PFS was similar in pts with ≥1 dose interruption vs. 0, pts who required dose interruption ≥8 days vs. Conclusions: Ven was well tolerated in this cohort; AE rates were similar to those reported in clinical trials. Both academic and community sites employed TLS prophylaxis consistent with FDA/EMA recommendations resulting in a small proportion of clinical TLS events ( Disclosures Fox: Sunesis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees and non-financial support, Speakers Bureau. Eyre:Gilead: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Roche: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Celgene: Other: travel support. Allan:Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Consultancy; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schuster:OncLive: Honoraria; Physician's Education Source, LLC: Honoraria; Dava Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Nabhan:Cardinal Health: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hill:Amgen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shah:Lentigen Technology: Research Funding; Miltenyi: Other: Travel funding, Research Funding; Juno Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Exelexis: Equity Ownership; Oncosec: Equity Ownership; Geron: Equity Ownership. Lamanna:Jannsen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cheson:AbbVie, Roche/Genentech, Pharmacyclics, Acerta, TG Therapeutics: Consultancy. Coombs:AROG: Other: Travel fees; H3 Biomedicine: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; DAVA Oncology: Honoraria; Incyte: Other: Travel fees. Barr:AbbVie, Gilead: Consultancy. Skarbnik:Gilead Sciences: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Shadman:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Mustang Biopharma: Research Funding; Beigene: Research Funding; Qilu Puget Sound Biotherapeutics: Consultancy. Ujjani:AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Pagel:Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Jacobs:Genentech: Honoraria. Schuh:Giles, Roche, Janssen, AbbVie: Honoraria. Brander:Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; BeiGene: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; DTRM: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Acerta: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mato:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Sunesis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Prime Oncology: Speakers Bureau.

Introduction: Venetoclax (Ven) is approved for relapsed/refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) as monotherapy (Ven mono) or in combination (Ven paired) with rituximab based on clinical trials with selected patients (pts) and limited ibrutinib exposure. Whether Ven paired is superior to Ven mono, patterns of care, and outcomes following Ven discontinuation are unknown. Further, better delineation of adverse events (AEs) when Ven is used outside of clinical trials is needed. To address these gaps, we conducted a multicenter, international study in partnership with CLL Collaborative Study of Real World Evidence (CORE) and UK CLL Study Forum examining the clinical experience of 348 Ven treated CLL pts, representing the largest series of Ven treated pts reported to date. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of CLL pts treated with Ven across 24 US and 42 UK academic and community centers. We examined demographics, baseline disease characteristics, dosing, AEs, TLS risk and outcomes, response rates, outcomes (overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS)), and tx sequencing. TLS events were defined by Howard criteria. PFS and OS were estimated by the Kaplan Meier method. Comparisons of outcomes used the Log Rank test. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed with COX regression. All other comparisons were descriptive. Results: Of these 348 CLL pts, 94% were R/R, median age 67 years (range:37-91), 69% male, 85% white, and 73% Rai stage ≥2. 19% received Ven on clinical trial. 79% had Ven mono; Ven was paired most commonly with anti-CD20 (n=51) and ibrutinib (n=10). Pts received a median of 3 tx (range 0-15) before Ven; 78% received ibrutinib, 29% received PI3Ki, 20% had ≥2 prior kinase inhibitors, and 68% had chemoimmunotherapy. Median time from most recent tx to Ven start was 1.1 months (range 0-62). Pre-Ven prognostic markers included 43% del17p, 34% TP53 mutated, 24% del11q, 38% complex karyotype (≥ 3 abnormalities), and 84% IGHV unmutated (Table 1). TLS risk was low in 38%, intermediate in 34% and high in 28%. During ramp up, TLS was observed in 10% (22 lab, 9 clinical TLS events, 3 missing data). Following dose escalation, 70% achieved a stable Ven dose of 400 mg, 33% required ≥ 1 dose interruption and 27% required ≥ 1 dose reduction. AEs included grade 3 neutropenia 39%, grade 3 thrombocytopenia 29%, infections 25%, grade ≥ 2 diarrhea 7.8%, and neutropenic fever 7.7%. AEs were similar whether treated on or off clinical trial. The ORR to Ven mono, Ven paired was 81% (34% CR), 86% (29% CR). With a median follow-up of 14.2 months, median PFS and OS were not reached (12 month PFS 74%, OS 82%). Figure 1 depicts PFS stratified by Ven mono vs. paired, clinical trial vs. clinical practice, del17p status, and complex karyotype. Pts who discontinued Ven due to AEs had better OS compared with those who discontinued due to progression or Richter Transformation (RT) (Median OS 47 vs. 15.1 vs. 8.6 months, respectively). In multivariate analyses, complex karyotype was the only independent predictor of PFS (HR 2.8, p Conclusions: In this heavily pretreated, poor risk group, Ven showed favorable outcomes with comparable toxicity and efficacy on or off clinical trial. Similar outcomes were observed for Ven mono and Ven paired; longer follow up is needed from studies of Ven paired to understand depth and durability of response. Complex karyotype independently predicted inferior PFS and OS. Without complex karyotype, del(17p), multiple lines of prior tx, and prior ibrutinib tx were independent predictors of inferior outcomes. Outcomes of retreatment with KI in Ven-failure previously treated with KI were poor. Data on sequencing cellular therapies post Ven is forthcoming. Disclosures Mato: AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Medscape: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Prime Oncology: Honoraria; Portola: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy. Eyre:Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Celgene: Other: travel support. Nabhan:Cardinal Health: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lamanna:Acerta: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Jannsen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hill:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Brander:Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; DTRM: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; BeiGene: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding. Barr:AbbVie, Gilead: Consultancy. Cheson:AbbVie, Roche/Genentech, Pharmacyclics, Acerta, TG Therapeutics: Consultancy. Shah:Geron: Equity Ownership; Lentigen Technology: Research Funding; Exelexis: Equity Ownership; Oncosec: Equity Ownership; Miltenyi: Other: Travel funding, Research Funding; Juno Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Allan:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Consultancy; Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kennard:AbbVie, Gilead, Verastem: Consultancy. Schuster:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Physician's Education Source, LLC: Honoraria; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Dava Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; OncLive: Honoraria; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Skarbnik:Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Coombs:AROG: Other: Travel fees; Abbvie: Consultancy; Incyte: Other: Travel fees; DAVA Oncology: Honoraria; H3 Biomedicine: Honoraria. Ujjani:AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Jacobs:Genentech: Honoraria. Pagel:Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Schuh:Giles, Roche, Janssen, AbbVie: Honoraria. Shadman:Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Mustang Biopharma: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Beigene: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy; Qilu Puget Sound Biotherapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Fox:Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: travel support, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: travel support, Speakers Bureau; Sunesis: Consultancy.

Objective: Ovarian cancer is the most lethal cancer involving the female pelvic reproductive system. Its incidence increases with age and with an aging population, its prevalence should also increase. The goal of our retrospective study is to report our experience in treating women over 65 years of age, with a diagnosis of primary ovarian cancer, using standard intravenous chemotherapy. Methods: The medical records of 78 patients>65 years of age diagnosed with primary ovarian cancer at the Yale Cancer Center between 1996-2006 were retrospectively reviewed and included in our analysis. Patients had stage IIV disease (stage I n=5, stage II n=8, stage III n=36, stage IV n=25, unknown n=4). Results: Sixty-three of 78 women (80.8%) completed the prescribed regimen; and 62 women did not require a dose reduction or chemotherapy discontinuation. The most common reason for a dose reduction or treatment discontinuation was fatigue (6.4%), neutropenia (2.6%), patient preference (2.6%), and multipleco-morbidities (2.6%). The most commonly used regimen was paclitaxel 175mg/m2 and carboplatin AUC 5. The hazard ratio for PFS and OS for patients who had dose reduction/discontinuation versus those who completed the prescribed dose was 1.3 (95% CI 0.51-3.26) and 0.63 (95% CI 0.17-2.33), respectively. Conclusions: Our findings illustrate that elderly women are able to tolerate standard chemotherapy with relatively few significant adverse effects. While different treatment modalities in ovarian cancer are continually being evaluated, additional prospective studies are required to better understand the tolerability and efficacy of such treatment in the elderly population.