An-Institut für Qualitätssicherung in der operativen Medizin

AIM: The objective of this study was to find out the effects of anastomotic leakage (AL) following resection of colon cancer upon perioperative outcome and long-term oncological result. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the database of a country-wide quality assurance study "Quality Assurance in Primary Colorectal Carcinoma" we analysed the data from the complete sub-population of 844 patients who had AL after resection of colon cancer. These were compared with corresponding data from 27 427 similar patients without AL. Hospital mortality, AL-associated post-operative morbidity and long-term outcome were investigated. RESULTS: Hospital mortality after AL was 18.6%, compared with 2.6% for patients without AI. AL-related secondary complications occurred in 62.7% cases, while patients without AL had a corresponding rate of 19.9%. Those with AL had a poorer long-term oncological result, with a five-year survival rate of 51.0% (p<0.001) and a five-year tumour-free survival rate of 63.0% (compare 74.6% without AL; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Post-operative AL after resection of colon cancer is associated with significant morbidity and hospital mortality rates and with a greater risk of a poor oncological outcome.

BACKGROUND: Complete mesocolic excision (CME) for right colonic cancer is a more complex operation than standard right hemicolectomy but evidence to support its routine use is still limited. This prospective multicentre study evaluated the effect of CME on long-term survival in colorectal cancer centres in Germany (RESECTAT trial). The primary hypothesis was that 5-year disease-free survival would be higher after CME than non-CME surgery. A secondary hypothesis was that there would be improved survival of patients with a mesenteric area greater than 15 000 mm2. METHODS: Centres were asked to continue their current surgical practices. The surgery was classified as CME if the superior mesenteric vein was dissected; otherwise it was assumed that no CME had been performed. All specimens were shipped to one institution for pathological analysis and documentation. Clinical data were recorded in an established registry for quality assurance. The primary endpoint was 5-year overall survival for stages I-III. Multivariable adjustment for group allocation was planned. Using a primary hypothesis of an increase in disease-free survival from 60 to 70 per cent, a sample size of 662 patients was calculated with a 50 per cent anticipated drop-out rate. RESULTS: A total of 1004 patients from 53 centres were recruited for the final analysis (496 CME, 508 no CME). Most operations (88.4 per cent) were done by an open approach. Anastomotic leak occurred in 3.4 per cent in the CME and 1.8 per cent in the non-CME group. There were slightly more lymph nodes found in CME than non-CME specimens (mean 55.6 and 50.4 respectively). Positive central mesenteric nodes were detected more in non-CME than CME specimens (5.9 versus 4.0 per cent). One-fifth of patients had died at the time of study with recorded recurrences (63, 6.3 per cent), too few to calculate disease-free survival (the original primary outcome), so overall survival (not disease-specific) results are presented. Short-term and overall survival were similar in the CME and non-CME groups. Adjusted Cox regression indicated a possible benefit for overall survival with CME in stage III disease (HR 0.52, 95 per cent c.i. 0.31 to 0.85; P = 0.010) but less so for disease-free survival (HR 0.66; P = 0.068). The secondary outcome (15 000 mm2 mesenteric size) did not influence survival at any stage (removal of more mesentery did not alter survival). CONCLUSION: No general benefit of CME could be established. The observation of better overall survival in stage III on unplanned exploratory analysis is of uncertain significance.

Introduction: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are an effective therapy for pts with CML. However, resistance to treatment driven by point mutations in the ABL kinase domain, particularly the T315I mutation, represents a clinical challenge. The T315I mutation confers resistance to all approved ATP-competitive TKIs except ponatinib (PON) and is associated with significantly worse clinical outcomes. PON use, however, is limited in many patients by its safety profile. Asciminib has a distinct mechanism of action and is the first-in-class STAMP (Specifically Targeting the ABL Myristoyl Pocket) inhibitor. Asciminib demonstrated clinical activity in heavily pretreated CML pts with or without mutations, with promising efficacy in pts with T315I, including those resistant to/intolerant of (R/I) PON. Methods: This phase 1 study enrolled adults with CML in chronic phase (CP) or accelerated phase (AP) R/I ≥ 2 TKIs; pts with T315I were eligible after receiving ≥ 1 TKI if no other effective therapy was available. Pts with uncontrolled cardiovascular conditions were excluded. Pts with T315I were assigned to varying dose levels in phase 1, and 200 mg twice daily (BID) was selected for cohort expansion. Here, we report updated efficacy and safety results in pts with T315I who received 200 mg BID (data cutoff: April 2, 2020). Results: A total of 52 pts with T315I received asciminib 200 mg BID. At the data cutoff, treatment was ongoing in 35/52 pts (67.3%); 17 (32.7%) discontinued treatment, a majority of whom (10 [19.2%]) discontinued due to physician's decision, mainly for unsatisfactory response (Table 1). Of pts still on treatment, 31/35 (88.6%) received treatment for &amp;gt; 48 wk. The median duration of exposure was 68.4 wk (range, 2-175 wk) and median dose intensity was 399.0 mg/day (range, 188-400 mg/day). Among evaluable pts not in major molecular response (MMR) at baseline, 23/49 (46.9%) achieved MMR and 21 of these responders were still in MMR at the time of data cutoff; 40.8%, 42.9%, 44.9%, and 46.9% had MMR by 24, 48, 72, and 96 wk, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier-estimated rate of durable first MMR among pts who achieved MMR was 87% (95% CI, 68.4-100.0) at 96 wk and remained unchanged until 144 wk. The median time to MMR was 12.1 wk (range, 4-84 wk). By 24 wk, 57.1% of PON-naive pts and 28.6% of PON-pretreated pts achieved MMR (Table 2). Three additional pts achieved MMR after 24 wk: 2 PON naive and 1 PON pretreated. The estimated cumulative MMR rate at 60 wk increased to 66% and 32% in PON-naive and PON-pretreated pts, respectively (Figure). Among 26 pts who did not achieve MMR, 3 had additional mutations (E255K, E355G, F359I) at baseline and 6 acquired new mutations after baseline (F359I [n = 2], A337T/F359V, M351T, M244V, E453Q). Among 2 pts who lost MMR, 1 acquired a new F359V mutation. Among evaluable pts without MMRat baseline, 13/49 (26.5%) and 10/49 (20.4%) achieved MR4 and MR4.5, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were reported in 45/52 pts (86.5%) and were mainly mild in severity; grade ≥ 3 AEs were reported in 17/52 pts (32.7%). All-grade serious AEs were reported in 12 pts (23.1%), with 2 (3.8%) deemed treatment related. No on-treatment deaths were reported. On-treatment AEs leading to discontinuation were reported in 4 pts (7.7%; disease progression, grade 2 thrombocytosis, grade 3 lipase elevation, and grade 4 pancytopenia, 1 pt each). Dose reductions and interruptions (excluding dosing errors) were reported in 21 (40.4%) and 22 (42.3%) pts, respectively (reduction and/or interruption in 29 pts total); they were mainly due to AEs (13 [25.0%] and 18 [34.6%] pts, respectively). The most frequent any-grade AEs of special interest (occurring in ≥ 10% of pts) were gastrointestinal toxicity (48.1%), hypersensitivity (26.9%), myelosuppression (25.0%), pancreatic toxicity (25.0%), hepatotoxicity (23.1%), thrombocytopenia (21.2%), hemorrhage (17.3%), leukopenia (15.4%), and edema and fluid retention (13.5%). Ischemic stroke and peripheral arterial occlusive disease were each reported in 1 pt; both pts had underlying cardiovascular disease. Conclusions: Asciminib 200 mg BID monotherapy continued to demonstrate a favorable safety profile and clinical efficacy in pts with CML-CP/AP harboring the T315I mutation, with durable MMR seen in almost half of the patients. Asciminib is a promising therapeutic option for pts with CML-CP/AP with T315I, including those for whom PON treatment has failed. Disclosures Cortes: Arog: Research Funding; BiolineRx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amphivena Therapeutics: Research Funding; Telios: Research Funding; Immunogen: Research Funding; Merus: Research Funding; Sun Pharma: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; BioPath Holdings: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding. Hughes:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mauro:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding; Sun Pharma/SPARC: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding. Hochhaus:Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding. Rea:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Janssen:MSD: Other: Founder of the HematologyApp which is supported by Janssen, BMS, Incyte, MSD, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Roche and Takeda; Roche: Other: Founder of the HematologyApp which is supported by Janssen, BMS, Incyte, MSD, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Roche and Takeda; Daiichi-Sankyo: Other: Founder of the HematologyApp which is supported by Janssen, BMS, Incyte, MSD, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Roche and Takeda; Takeda: Other: Founder of the HematologyApp which is supported by Janssen, BMS, Incyte, MSD, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Roche and Takeda; Janssen: Other: Founder of the HematologyApp which is supported by Janssen, BMS, Incyte, MSD, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Roche and Takeda; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Founder of the HematologyApp which is supported by Janssen, BMS, Incyte, MSD, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Roche and Takeda; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Founder of the HematologyApp which is supported by Janssen, BMS, Incyte, MSD, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Roche and Takeda; BMS: Other: Founder of the HematologyApp which is supported by Janssen, BMS, Incyte, MSD, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Roche and Takeda, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Steegmann:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Speaker; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Speaker; Incyte: Honoraria, Other: Speaker; Pfizer: Honoraria, Other: Speaker. Heinrich:Novartis: Consultancy, Patents &amp; Royalties: Patent on treatment of GIST licensed to Novartis; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy; Deciphera: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Talpaz:IMAGO: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding. Etienne:Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Breccia:Abbvie: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Deininger:Blueprint Medicines Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: part of a study management committee, Research Funding; Medscape: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Fusion Pharma: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Sangamo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SPARC: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; DisperSol: Consultancy; Galena: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Leukemia &amp; Lymphoma Society: Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Researc

Introduction: BOS is approved for patients (pts) with Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) CML resistant/intolerant to prior therapy and pts with newly diagnosed Ph+ CP CML. Approval of first-line BOS was based on the primary results from the phase 3 BFORE trial, which showed superior efficacy vs imatinib (IMA) in the modified intent-to-treat (ITT) population (pop; Ph+ with e13a2/e14a2 transcripts) after ≥12 mo of follow-up. We report the final efficacy and safety results from the BFORE trial after 5 y of follow-up. Methods: In the open-label BFORE trial (NCT02130557), 536 pts with newly diagnosed CP CML were randomized 1:1 to receive BOS (n=268) or IMA (n=268; 3 untreated), both at 400 mg once daily. Efficacy was assessed in the ITT pop (all randomized pts). Long-term secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), on-treatment event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS). Safety was assessed in the safety pop (all treated pts). This final analysis was based on an April 17, 2020 last pt last visit (June 12, 2020 database lock), 5 y (240 weeks) after the last enrolled pt. Results: At study completion in BOS and IMA arms, respectively, 59.7% and 57.4% were still on treatment, 86.6% and 86.2% completed 5 y on study. Median duration of treatment and time on study was 55.2 mo for pts receiving BOS or IMA; respective median (range) dose intensity was 394 (39-583) vs 400 (189-765) mg/d. Cumulative major molecular response (MMR) rate by 60 mo was higher with BOS vs IMA (73.9% vs 64.6%), as was cumulative molecular response (MR)4 (58.2% vs 48.1%) and MR4.5 rate (47.4% vs 36.6%; Table). Among evaluable pts, more pts in the BOS arm achieved BCR-ABL1 ≤10% at 3 months (Table); cumulative MMR by 60 mo was higher in pts with transcripts ≤10% vs &amp;gt;10% in both treatment arms (BOS, HR 2.67 [95% CI, 1.90-3.75]; IMA, HR 3.12 [2.19-4.45]). Pts in the BOS arm achieved responses earlier than pts in the IMA arm; cumulative incidence function for MMR, MR4 and MR4.5 was higher with BOS vs IMA (HR [95% CI]: MMR 1.34 [1.10-1.64], MR4 1.34 [1.07-1.69], MR4.5 1.41 [1.09-1.83]). Among responders, duration of MMR was similar for BOS and IMA (Table). Superior MRs with BOS vs IMA were consistent across Sokal risk groups, with the greatest difference seen in pts with high Sokal risk (Table). On-treatment transformations to accelerated/blast phase (AP/BP) occurred in 6 (AP 3; BP 3) BOS- and 7 (AP 6; BP 1) IMA-treated pts. No transformation occurred after the 24-mo follow-up. In all, 18 BOS- vs 25 IMA-treated pts had EFS events. There were no differences in EFS between treatment arms; cumulative incidence of on treatment progression/death at 60 mo was 6.7% for BOS vs 9.3% for IMA (Table). The 60-mo OS rates were similar (94.5% and 94.6%; Table); 14 BOS- and 14 IMA-treated pts died during the study period: 3 and 4 were CML-related, 0 and 1 were due to adverse events (AEs) related to study treatment. The most common reasons for permanent discontinuation were AEs (25.0% vs 12.5%) and lack of efficacy (4.9% vs 16.2%). Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) occurred in 98.9% of pts in each arm; most common (&amp;gt;30%) were diarrhea (75.0%), nausea (37.3%), thrombocytopenia (35.8%) and increased alanine aminotransferase (ALT; 33.6%) with BOS, and diarrhea (40.4%), nausea (42.3%) and muscle spasms (30.6%) with IMA. Most TEAEs occurred during the first year of treatment. Grade 3/4 TEAEs occurred in 73.5% of BOS- vs 57.0% of IMA-treated pts; most common (&amp;gt;5%) were increased ALT (20.9%) and lipase (13.4%), thrombocytopenia (14.2%), increased aspartate aminotransferase (10.4%), diarrhea (9.0%) and neutropenia (7.5%) with BOS, and neutropenia (13.6%), thrombocytopenia (6.0%), anemia (5.7%) and increased lipase (5.7%) with IMA. No individual AE led to discontinuation in &amp;gt;5% of pts. The most frequent AEs leading to permanent treatment discontinuation were increased ALT (4.9%) with BOS vs thrombocytopenia (1.5%) with IMA; 1.5% vs 1.1% of pts discontinued due to diarrhea. Conclusions: At 5 y, first-line BOS continued to show superior efficacy vs IMA; BOS-treated pts achieved earlier and deeper molecular response. An improvement in MR with BOS was demonstrated across Sokal risk groups, with the greatest benefit vs IMA observed in Sokal high-risk pts. Long-term AEs were generally manageable, and consistent with previous reports and the known safety profiles of both drugs. These results confirm the use of BOS as a standard of care in pts with newly diagnosed CP CML. Disclosures Brümmendorf: Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding. Cortes:Astellas: Research Funding; Arog: Research Funding; Merus: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; BioPath Holdings: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amphivena Therapeutics: Research Funding; Immunogen: Research Funding; Telios: Research Funding; BiolineRx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sun Pharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Milojkovic:Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gambacorti-Passerini:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Clark:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ariad/Incyte: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. le Coutre:Incyte: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Garcia-Gutiérrez:Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding. Chuah:Novartis: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: Travel, Research Funding; Korea Otsuka Pharmaceutical: Honoraria. Kota:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical, Company Ltd, Cambridge, MA, USA: Honoraria; Ariad: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Xcenda: Honoraria. Lipton:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Rousselot:Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Mauro:Sun Pharma/SPARC: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding. Hochhaus:MSD: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding. Hurtado Monroy:Incyte: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Leip:Pfizer: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Purcell:Pfizer: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Yver:Pfizer: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Viqueira:Pfizer: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Deininger:Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; SPARC: Research Funding; DisperSol: Consultancy; Pfizer: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Fusion Pharma: Consultancy; Blueprint Medicines Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: part of a study management committee, Research Funding; Leukemia &amp; Lymphoma Society: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; Medscape: Consultancy; Sangamo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Galena: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other.

Abstract Introduction: Myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms (MLNs) with rearrangement of FGFR1 on chromosome band 8p11 are rare but aggressive neoplasms characterized by heterogeneous presentation with myeloid and/or lymphoid proliferation, extramedullary involvement, and rapid progression to blast phase (Strati P, et al., Leuk Lymphoma. 2018;59:1672-1676). FGFR1 gets constitutively activated through fusion genes involving various partner genes, most frequently ZMYM2-FGFR1 or BCR-FGFR1 as consequence of a t(8;13)(p11;q12) or a t(8;22)(p11;q11), respectively. Chemotherapy is usually ineffective, effective targeted treatment has not been described, and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (alloHSCT) is the only potentially curative option. Pemigatinib, a selective, potent, oral inhibitor of FGFR1, 2, and 3, has shown efficacy in patients with FGF/FGFR-activated tumors, including cholangiocarcinoma and urothelial carcinoma. We report interim results from the ongoing fight-203 study (NCT03011372) of pemigatinib in patients with FGFR1-rearranged MLNs. Methods: Fight-203 is a phase 2, open-label study enrolling patients ≥ 18 years of age with FGFR1-rearranged MLN. Patients enrolled in the study must have progressed on ≥ 1 prior treatment and be ineligible for alloHSCT. Patients receive a daily oral dose of pemigatinib 13.5 mg on a 21-day cycle (2 weeks on, 1 week off) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint is overall clinical benefit rate, which includes complete clinical (CR) or partial clinical response (PR), and either complete or partial cytogenetic response (CCyR, PCyR). Secondary endpoints include duration of response/benefit, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety/tolerability. Efficacy is assessed by evaluation of bone marrow histomorphology changes, standard cytogenetic and FISH evaluation of the FGFR1 rearrangement, and PET/CT scan. Results: At data cutoff (July 23, 2018), 14 patients were enrolled. Ten patients who had ≥ 1 response assessment were included in the analysis (Table). Patients received an average of 6.9 cycles of pemigatinib (range, 2-12 cycles). Median number of prior lines of therapy was 3 (range, 0-5), including 2 patients who received alloHSCT. Eight patients (80%) had a major CyR, including 6 patients with CCyR and 2 with PCyR. Eight patients (80%) had a CR or PR in bone marrow, peripheral blood, and extramedullary disease. One patient died of progression to myeloid blast crisis, 2 patients were bridged to alloHSCT, and 7 patients are ongoing. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were hyperphosphatemia (n=7 [70%]), diarrhea (n=5 [50%]) and anemia (n=5 [50%]); hyperphosphatemia was managed with diet and phosphate binders. Nine events in 4 patients (40%) were grade 3/4; 2 of these events (diarrhea and leukopenia) in 2 patients were related to pemigatinib. There were no drug-related AEs leading to dose interruption, dose reduction, or discontinuation. Conclusions: Pemigatinib showed promising efficacy, with an 80% major CyR rate accompanied by complete or partial remission, and was generally well tolerated by patients with FGFR1-rearranged MLN. The protocol was amended to allow continuous dosing, and the study is currently enrolling. Disclosures Verstovsek: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Italfarmaco: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Gotlib:Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Deciphera: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Kartos: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Mead:Celgene: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Evotek: Research Funding; ARIAD: Consultancy; Cell Therapeutics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Elstar: Research Funding. Hochhaus:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Kiladjian:AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hernandez Boluda:Incyte: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Asatiani:Incyte: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lihou:Incyte: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhen:Incyte: Employment, Equity Ownership. Reiter:Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Introduction: Asciminib, unlike all approved TKIs that bind to the ATP site of the BCR-ABL1 oncoprotein, is a first-in-class STAMP (Specifically Targeting the ABL Myristoyl Pocket) inhibitor with a new mechanism of action. BOS, an ATP-competitive TKI, has shown clinical efficacy in pts who received ≥2 TKIs and in newly diagnosed CML, in prospective clinical trials. We asked if asciminib could provide superior efficacy to BOS beyond 2nd line, based on the clinical activity of asciminib monotherapy in heavily pretreated pts with CML in a phase 1 study. Methods: Adults with CML-CP previously treated with ≥2 TKIs were randomized 2:1 to asciminib 40 mg twice daily (BID) or BOS 500 mg once daily (QD). Randomization was stratified by major cytogenetic response (MCyR; Ph+ metaphases ≤35%) status at baseline. Pts intolerant of their most recent TKI were eligible if they had BCR-ABL1IS &amp;gt;0.1% at screening (19 pts with BCR-ABL1IS &amp;lt;1% enrolled). Pts with treatment failure (per 2013 European LeukemiaNet recommendations) on BOS are permitted to switch to asciminib per investigator judgement. Pts with known bosutinib-resistant T315I or V299L mutations were excluded. The primary endpoint was major molecular response (MMR) rate at 24 wks. We report primary efficacy and safety results from ASCEMBL (cutoff: May 25, 2020). Results: A total of 233 pts with CML-CP was randomized to receive asciminib 40 mg BID (n=157) or BOS 500 mg QD (n=76). Fewer pts on asciminib discontinued their last TKI due to lack of efficacy and fewer received ≥3 prior lines of TKI therapy (Table 1). At cutoff, treatment was ongoing in 97 (61.8%) and 23 (30.3%) pts, respectively; the most common reason for treatment discontinuation was lack of efficacy (asciminib, 33 [21.0%] pts; BOS, 24 [31.6%]) (Table 1). Lack of efficacy was most frequently BCR-ABL1 &amp;gt;10% or Ph+ &amp;gt;65% after 6 months of therapy (asciminib 10.8%, BOS 25.0%). Among the 24 pts who discontinued BOS due to lack of efficacy, 22 switched to asciminib. At baseline, ≥1 BCR-ABL1 mutation was present in 12.7% pts on asciminib (most common: F359C/V) and 17.1% on BOS (most common: M244V, F317L). Median duration of follow-up was 14.9 months from randomization to cutoff. Median duration of exposure was 43.4 wks (range, 0.1-129.9) for asciminib and 29.2 wks (range, 1.0-117.0) for BOS; median relative dose intensity was 99.7% (87-100) and 95.4% (74-100). MMR rate at 24 wks was 25.5% with asciminib and 13.2% with BOS, meeting the primary objective. The between-arm common treatment difference for MMR at 24 wks, after adjustment for MCyR status at baseline, was 12.2% (95% CI, 2.19-22.3: 2-sided P=.029). Among those pts who achieved MMR, median time to MMR was 12.7 wks and 14.3 wks with asciminib and BOS, respectively. At 24 wks, more pts on asciminib (17 [10.8%] and 14 [8.9%]) than on BOS (4 [5.3%] and 1 [1.3%]) achieved deep molecular response (MR4 and MR4.5, respectively). CCyR rate at 24 wks was 40.8% with asciminib vs 24.2% with BOS. Preplanned subgroup analysis showed that the MMR rate at 24 wks was superior with asciminib than BOS across most major demographic and prognostic subgroups, including in pts who received ≥3 prior TKIs, in those who discontinued the prior TKI due to treatment failure, and regardless of baseline cytogenetic response (Figure). Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 50.6% and 60.5% of pts receiving asciminib and BOS, respectively. The proportion of pts who discontinued treatment due to AEs was lower with asciminib (5.8%) than BOS (21.1%). Grade ≥3 AEs and AEs requiring dose interruption and/or adjustments were reported less frequently with asciminib than BOS (Table 2). Most frequent grade ≥3 AEs (occurring in &amp;gt;10% of pts in any treatment arm) with asciminib vs BOS were thrombocytopenia (17.3%; 6.6%), neutropenia (14.7%; 11.8%), diarrhea (0%, 10.5%), and increased alanine aminotransferase (0.6%, 14.5%). On-treatment deaths occurred in 2 pts (1.3%) on asciminib (ischemic stroke and arterial embolism, 1 pt each) and 1 pt (1.3%) on BOS (septic shock). Conclusions: In this first controlled study comparing treatments for resistant/intolerant (R/I) pts with CML, asciminib, a first-in-class STAMP inhibitor, demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful superiority in efficacy compared with BOS (primary objective), deeper MR rates, and a favorable safety profile. These results support the use of asciminib as a new treatment option in CML, particularly in R/I pts who received ≥2 prior TKIs. Disclosures Hochhaus: Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Boquimpani:Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Rea:BMS: 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; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Minami:Pfizer Japan Inc.: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Honoraria; Novartis Pharma KK: Honoraria. Lomaia:Bristol Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Voloshin:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Turkina:Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis Pharma: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Kim:Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; ILYANG: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Sun Pharma.: Research Funding. Apperley:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Cortes:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BioPath Holdings: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Telios: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Amphivena Therapeutics: Research Funding; Arog: Research Funding; BiolineRx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Immunogen: Research Funding; Merus: Research Funding; Sun Pharma: Research Funding. Abdo:Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Kim:Paladin: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. le Coutre:Pfizer: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Saussele:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria. Hughes:BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Chee:Novartis: Other: Travel support for attendance at investigator meeting. García Gutiérrez:Novartis Pharma AG: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodations/expenses, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodations/expenses, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodations/expenses, Research Funding. Sasaki:Pfizer Japan: Consultancy; Otsuka: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy. Aimone:Novartis: Current Employment. Allepuz:Novartis: Current Employment. Quenet:Novartis: Current Employment. Bédoucha:Novartis: Current Employment. Mauro:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding; Sun Pharma/SPARC: Research Funding.

By the mean of a prospective multicenter observational study (East German Gastric Cancer Study - EGGCS), 1 139 consecutive patients with gastric cancer were enrolled in 80 East German surgical departments from January 1 to December 31, 2002. Out of them, 1,031 (90.5%) underwent surgical intervention. The resection rate was 86.4% (n = 891); the R0 resection rate (n = 726) was 81.5%. Gastrectomy was performed in 79.8 % (n = 649) of subjects with radical resections (n = 813). In approximately 70 % of the interventions with curative intention, lymph node resection of the D2 compartment was carried out. The postoperative hospital mortality was 8.3%. The results were compared with the data obtained in the German Gastric Cancer Study (GGCS 1992); relevant differences and aspects were discussed.

INTRODUCTION: With about 135,000 operations every year appendectomy is one of the most frequent surgical operations in Germany. Acute appendicitis has shown changes in diagnosis and therapy with time. The status of the laparoscopic appendectomy has had to be redefined recently. The aim of this study was to make an analysis of the current surgical therapy for appendicitis and the individual procedures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three prospective multi-centre quality assurance studies (1988 / 89, 1996 / 97; 2008 / 09) of the "An-Institut" acquired 17,732 treatments from all supply levels of Germany. RESULTS: The average age of patients increased within of the three studies from 25.7 to 34.6 years. Within the studies in 1996 / 97 and in 2008 / 09 the share of laparoscopic appendectomy advanced from 33.1 to 85.8 percent. In the study from 2008 / 09 the laparoscopic appendectomy showed a significant advantage over the conventional technique in terms of wound-healing disturbances (p < 0.001) and a clinical duration of stay (p < 0.001). At no stage of the appendix inflammation did the laparoscopic appendectomy lead to a significant increase of intraabdominal abscesses. Compared with the conventional technique the operating time was shorter (46.6 min vs. 53.5 min). Currently the use of a stapler is the mostly frequently applied method of appendiceal stump closure (83.6 percent). CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic appendectomy is the most common method of current operative therapy. In comparison to former publications, there is no proof of any disadvantages of laparoscopic appendectomy.

Background In newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML), the general recommendation is to start treatment immediately after the diagnosis has been made. This paradigm is based both on the observation that untreated acute leukemia has a poor prognosis and on retrospective analyses demonstrating a shorter survival in younger AML patients (pts) in whom treatment was delayed by more than 5 days (Sekeres et al., 2009). A more recent single-center analysis came to a different conclusion, showing no prognostic effect for the time from diagnosis to treatment (TDT; Bertoli et al., 2013). We explored the relationship between TDT and prognosis on a large set of real-world data from the AML registry of the Study Alliance Leukemia (SAL) and compared it to the published cohorts. Methods The SAL runs a transregional AML registry in 46 treatment centers across Germany (NCT03188874). All registered patients with an intensive induction treatment, a minimum follow-up time of 12 months and no acute promyelocytic leukemia were selected (n=2,200). Treatment start was defined by the first day of cytarabine, whereas single agent hydroxyurea (HU) was labeled as pretreatment. We analyzed the influence of TDT on complete remission (CR), early death (ED) and overall survival (OS) in univariable analyses for each day of treatment delay, in groups of 0-5, 6-10, 11-15 and &amp;gt;15 days of TDT, and by using the restricted cubic spline (RCS) method for data modelling. In order to adjust for the influence of established prognostic variables on the outcomes, we used multivariable regression models and propensity score weighting. The influence of HU pretreatment on outcomes was investigated by introducing an interaction term between TDT and the presence of HU pretreatment. Results The median age was 59 years (y) (IQR 50-68), the proportion of pts with favorable, intermediate and adverse genetic risk according to ELN was 27%, 53%, and 20%; &amp;gt;95% of pts received induction treatment with standard 7+3. HU pretreatment was administered in 4% of pts. The median TDT was 3 days (IQR 2-6). Descriptive statistics after grouping of pts showed the highest median age and the lowest proportion of NPM1 mutated and favorable risk in the TDT group 11-15. Of all pts, 79% achieved a CR/CRi; unadjusted CR rates for the patient groups with TDT of 0-5, 6-10, 11-15 and &amp;gt;15 days were 80%, 77%, 74% and 76%, respectively (p=0.317). In multivariable analysis accounting for the influence of ELN risk, age, WBC, LDH, de novo versus secondary AML and ECOG, the OR for each additional day of TDT was 0.99 (95%-CI, 0.97-1.00; p=0.124). Four percent of pts died within the first 30 days from treatment start. The respective rates in the four TDT categories were 4.0%, 3.8%, 5.1% and 4.1% (p=0.960). In multivariable analysis, the OR for TDT was 1.01 (95%-CI, 0.98-1.05; p=0.549). After a median follow-up of 40 months, the 2-y OS of all pts was 51%. The unadjusted 2-y OS rates stratified by TDT of 0-5, 6-10, 11-15, &amp;gt;15 days were 52, 49, 46, and 51% (see Table 1 and Figure 1). The hazard ratio (HR) for each day of treatment delay was 1.00 (95%-CI; 0.99-1.01; p=0.317). In multivariable Cox regression analysis, the HR for TDT as continuous variable was 1.00 (95%-CI, 0.99-1.01; p=0.689). When OS was analyzed separately stratified for age ≤60 and &amp;gt;60 ys and for high versus lower initial WBC defined by a threshold of 50 x 109/L, no significant differences between TDT groups were observed. Multivariable models using TDT as a grouped variable or with RCS did not provide evidence for a significant influence of TDT on outcomes. Propensity score matching of pts in the four TDT groups did not reveal an influence on outcomes. The use of HU was not associated with CR, ED nor OS. Conclusion Our study on 2,200 newly diagnosed registry pts receiving consistent intensive induction with standard-dose cytarabine plus daunorubicin (7+3) suggests that TDT is not related to response or survival, neither in younger nor in older pts. Despite multivariable analyses, a bias towards longer TDT intervals in pts judged to be clinically stable by the treating physician cannot be excluded entirely. As treatment stratification in intensive first-line treatment of AML evolves, the TDT data suggests that it may be a safe and reasonable approach to wait for genetic and other laboratory test results in order to assign clinically stable pts to the best available treatment option before the start of intensive treatment. Disclosures Krämer: Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hänel:Roche: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Other: advisory board; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Other: advisory board. Jost:Daiichi: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Gilead: Other: travel grants; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Brümmendorf:Merck: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; University Hospital of the RWTH Aachen: Employment; Ariad: Consultancy. Krause:Siemens: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria; Gilead: Other: travel; Celgene Corporation: Other: Travel. Scholl:Novartis: Other: Project funding; Pfizer: Other: Advisory boards; Gilead: Other: Project funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Other: Advisory boards; AbbVie: Other: Advisory boards. Hochhaus:Pfizer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding. Kiani:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Middeke:Sanofi: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy. Thiede:AgenDix GmbH: Employment, Equity Ownership; Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Speakers Bureau. Stoelzel:JAZZ Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Neovii: Other: Travel funding; Shire: Consultancy, Other: Travel funding. Platzbecker:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

INTRODUCTION: The postoperative decease is the most severe complication in surgery. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Within the framework of a multicentre study between January 1 (st) and December 31, 1999, 3,756 patients, 1,463 of them suffering from rectal cancer and 2 293 from colon carcinoma, from 75 clinics were documented with the help of a standardized questionnaire. We compared data of 211 patients who died postoperatively with data of 3,484 patients who survived after surgical treatment of colorectal cancer. Logistical regressions, under inclusion and exclusion of intra- and postoperative complications, show independent influence factors on the postoperative decease and provide models for the prediction of the postoperative death. RESULTS: Compared to the patients who survived, the postoperative deceased patients were significantly older. They had a poorer risk profile and therefore a higher ASA-score (p < 0.001). 20.4 % of the patients underwent an emergency operation. General and specific postoperative complications occurred significantly more frequently. The model of a logistical regression allowed the prediction of postoperative decease with a sensitivity and specificity of 91 %. General postoperative complications such as pulmonary embolism (relative risk: 30.3), cardiac (relative risk: 24.1), renal (relative risk: 22.1), and pulmonary complications (relative risk: 12.0) are crucial for lethality. DISCUSSION: The postoperative decease is influenced by several factors. It is impossible to reduce the number of influence factors for the prediction of outcome. The general postoperative complications, however, represent a crucial problem. It is important to avoid these problems in order to reduce postoperative lethality.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: The authors present an accurate and comprehensive snapshot of appendicitis in the last decade of the 20 (th) century. The present study also aims to determine the influence of introduction of laparoscopic techniques on the quality of appendicitis therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All consecutive patients admitted for suspected appendicitis were recruited into this prospective multicenter study. Two different periods of time were considered: from 1. 7. 1988 to 31. 12. 1989, 6 266 patients from 18 hospitals were included, and from 1. 6. 1996 to 31. 5. 1997, 7 398 patients from 34 institutions. RESULTS: In the first period (1988/89), 1 869 patients were treated conservatively (29.8 %), 4 397 (70.2 %) were operated. Histopathological analysis of the appendix documented no acute inflammation in 28.8 %, the perforation rate was 8.3 % and the wound infection rate 9.6 %. In the second period (1996/97), 2 430 patients were treated conservatively (32.8 %), in 24.9 % of all operated cases, the histopathological examination shows no acute inflammation of the appendix, the perforation rate was 5.9 % and the rate of wound infections 2.5 %. During this second period, 33.2 % of all appendectomies were performed using the laparoscope, the conversion rate was 7.2 %. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of laparoscopic techniques did not modify the operative indications for treatment of appendicitis. An increase in the number of normal appendices removed was not observed. The number of perforations and the incidence of wound infections was significantly reduced in the second period.

Background: Anemia remains one cardinal symptom associated with reduced quality of life (QoL) in patients (pts) with myelofibrosis (MF) which is normally not being addressed by ruxolitinib (RUX). In our previous MPNSG-0109 trial, single-agent pomalidomide (POM) improved cytopenia in 14% (POM 0.5 mg QD) and 29% (POM 2.0 mg QD) of MF pts, respectively. In the MPNSG-0212 study, we sought to investigate the potential synergism of RUX plus POM to improve anemia and QoL in MF pts. Study Design: MPNSG-0212 is an ongoing multicenter, open-label, single-arm phase-Ib/II trial with a target population of 90 pts following a two-stage design (NCT01644110). Pts 1-40 in cohort 1 (co1) were treated with RUX (10 mg BID) plus low-dose POM (0.5 mg QD), while pts 41-90 in cohort 2 (co2) receive a step-wise dose increase of POM from 0.5 mg to 1 mg and 2 mg QD after 3 and 6 28-day-cycles, respectively. Primary endpoints are safety of the combination therapy, anemia response after 12 cycles (according to IWG-MRT and RBC transfusion independence [RBC-TI] criteria), and clinical benefit (CB) defined as stable disease plus i) hemoglobin (Hb) increase ≥1 g/dL in pts with RBC-TI or ii) doubling of RBC transfusion intervals and/or iii) significant (&amp;gt;25%) improvement of QoL as measured by the MPN-SAF questionnaire. Main inclusion criterion is MF with anemia (Hb &amp;lt;10 g/dL and/or RBC transfusion dependence [RBC-TD]). Pts suitable for allogeneic transplantation and pts with low platelet counts (&amp;lt;100/nL) are excluded. Results: At data cut-off (31-May-2019), 79 pts were included. Data from 67 pts were available for evaluation (co1, n=40; co2, n=27). Baseline characteristics of the pts were as follows: median age 72 years (range 49-84), prior treatment in 53% (RUX in 22%, POM in 4%), median Hb level at study start 8.6 g/dL (range 5.4-11.7), RBC-TD in 28%, median spleen diameter measured by ultrasound 17.7 cm (range 12-36), presence of constitutional symptoms in 76%, and 91% intermediate-2 (61%) or high-risk (30%) pts according to DIPSS; 55% of pts in co1 had ≥1 high molecular risk mutation (ASXL1, SRSF2, EZH2, and/or IDH1/2). Median number of cycles until data cut-off was 12 (range 2-63) in co1 and 11 (range 2-21) in co2. In total, 502 adverse events (AE) mainly grade 1/2 were recorded: AE grade 1/2 in &amp;gt;20% of pts were fatigue (in 27% of pts), dyspnea (24%), diarrhea (22%), and muscle cramps (21%); AE grade ≥3 in &amp;gt;3% of pts was Hb decrease in the first weeks of treatment occurring in 25% of pts. In total, 87 serious AE (SAE), were recorded: most common SAE (in ≥3 pts) were pneumonia (in 15% of pts), leukemic transformation (9%), worsening of general condition (6%), CNS ischemia, and sepsis (4% each); 7 SAE (in 10% of pts) were grade 5. Number or severity of (S)AE was not increased in co2. Treatment interruptions of RUX and/or POM were necessary in 11 pts (27%) of co1 and 3 pts (11%) of co2; 2 pts stopped treatment permanently due to hematotoxicity. Increase of the POM dose to 1 mg and 2 mg QD was feasible in the majority of pts after 3 and 6 cycles, respectively. In co1, 18/40 pts (45%) continued treatment beyond cycle 12 because of an objective anemia response (7/40, 18%: clinical improvement [CI, Hb increase ≥2 g/dL] n=5, partial remission and RBC-TI n=1 each) or CB (11/40, 27%): Hb increase ≥1 g/dL and/or doubling of RBC transfusion intervals (n=4) or improvement of QoL according to MPN-SAF (n=7). In co2, 17/27 pts (63%) reached cycle 12 and 10/17 (59%) continued treatment: 2/10 (20%) experienced CI, whereas 8/10 (80%) fulfilled the CB criterion; 19/27 pts (70%) were still on treatment at the time of data cut-off. Among all 67 pts analyzed, 42% (28/67) were on treatment for more than 12 cycles and 24% (16/67) for more than 24 cycles; 3 pts (4%) were treated for more than 60 cycles due to sustained response or CB. Of note, mean Hb increased from 8.7 g/dL at baseline to 9.6 g/dL at end of cycle 18 and remained stable thereafter (Figure 1). Conclusions: Combination treatment using RUX plus POM is feasible in pts with poor-risk MF and resulted in an objective anemia response rate of 18% in co1. Of note, 42% of pts were treated with &amp;gt;12 cycles and showed a longer lasting stabilization of their disease with sustained improvement of Hb and QoL. Step-wise increase of the POM dose in co2 is safe and feasible with 70% of pts still on study treatment. Updated efficacy results of co2 with longer follow-up data will be presented at the meeting. Figure 1 Disclosures Stegelmann: Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Koschmieder:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis Foundation: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ariad: 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; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AOP Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Isfort:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Hexal: Other: Travel reimbursement; Amgen: Other: Travel reimbursement; Mundipharma: Other: Travel reimbursement; Roche: Other: Travel reimbursement; Alexion: Other: Travel reimbursement. Hochhaus:Pfizer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding. Göthert:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Proteros Biostructures: Consultancy; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: Travel support. Schafhausen:Incyte: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Radsak:Daiichi Sankyo: Other: Travel Support, Advisory Boards; Novartis: Other: Travel Support, Advisory Boards; JAZZ: Other: Travel Support; Celgene: Other: Travel Support, Advisory Boards; Takeda: Other: Advisory Boards; Otsuka: Other: Advisory Boards. von Bubnoff:Novartis: Research Funding. Reiter:Blueprint: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding; Deciphera: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement. Döhner:Celgene, Novartis, Sunesis: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie, Agios, Amgen, Astellas, Astex, Celator, Janssen, Jazz, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; AROG, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer: Research Funding. Griesshammer:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Döhner:Daiichi: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Honoraria.

BACKGROUND: The results of resection of colorectal carcinoma can vary greatly from one hospital to another. However, this does not necessarily reflect differences in the quality of treatment. The purpose of this study was to compare various tools for the risk-adjusted assessment of treatment results after resection of colorectal carcinoma within the context of hospital benchmarking. METHODS: On the basis of a data pool provided by a multicentric observation study of patients with colon cancer, the postoperative in-hospital mortality rates at two high-volume hospitals ("A" and "B") were compared. After univariate comparison, risk-adjusted comparison of postoperative mortality was performed by logistic regression analysis (LReA), propensity-score analysis (PScA), and the CR-POSSUM score. Postoperative complications were compared by LReA and PScA. RESULTS: Although postoperative mortality differed significantly (P = 0.041) in univariate comparison of hospitals A and B (2.9% vs. 6.4%), no significant difference was found by LReA or PScA. Similarly, the observed mortality at these did not differ significantly from the mortality estimated by the CR-POSSUM score (hospital A, 2.9%/4.9%, P = 0.298; hospital B, 6.4%/6.5%, P = 1.000). Significant differences were seen in risk-adjusted comparison of most postoperative complications (by both LReA and PScA), but there were no differences in the rates of relaparotomy or anastomotic leakage that required surgery. CONCLUSIONS: For the hard outcome variable "postoperative mortality," none of the three risk adjustment procedures showed any difference between the hospitals. The CR-POSSUM score can be regarded as the most practicable tool for risk-adjusted comparison of the outcome of colon-carcinoma resection in clinical benchmarking.

<b>Hintergrund:</b> Die Behandlung des Rektumkarzinoms hat sich in den letzten 2 Dekaden deutlich gewandelt. Durch konsequenten Einsatz neoadjuvanter Therapieverfahren und Anwendung der totalen mesorektalen Exzision beim tief sitzenden Rektumkarzinom konnte die lokale Tumorkontrolle signifikant gebessert werden. Mit der vorliegenden Analyse sollen die Umsetzung der multimodalen Therapie beim Rektumkarzinom unter den Bedingungen der Routineversorgung sowie die erreichten Ergebnisse über einen 10-Jahres-Zeitraum untersucht werden. <b>Methode:</b> Es wurden die Daten der prospektiven multizentrischen Beobachtungsstudie „Qualitätssicherung – Rektumkarzinom“ der Jahre 2000 bis 2010 ausgewertet. N = 33 724 Patienten wurden erfasst. Die Resektionsrate betrug 95,2 %. Die Rate kurativer Resektionen betrug 84,2 %. <b>Ergebnisse:</b> Die postoperative Gesamtmorbidität und Letalität zeigten keine Änderung im Verlauf der Beobachtung. Der Anteil neoadjuvant behandelter Patienten mit kurativer Resektion stieg von 5,6 % (2000) auf 40,5 % (2010). Die TME-Rate stieg bei tiefsitzenden Karzinomen von 75,2 % (2000) auf 95,3 % (2010). Für Patienten, die in den Jahren 2000/2001 kurativ reseziert wurden, lag die 5-Jahres-Lokalrezidivrate bei 11,7 %, während diese für in den Jahren 2005/2006 resezierte Patienten bei 4,6 % lag (p < 0,001). Eine Verbesserung des Gesamtüberlebens zeigte sich nicht. <b>Schlussfolgerung:</b> Bei gleichbleibender Gesamtmorbidität und Letalität hat der zunehmende Einsatz neoadjuvanter Behandlungen und die Etablierung der TME in der flächendeckenden Routineversorgung von Patienten mit Rektumkarzinomen zu einer signifikanten Verbesserung der lokalen Tumorkontrolle geführt, ohne dass ein Einfluss auf das Gesamtüberleben der Patienten nachweisbar ist.

INTRODUCTION: The quality of treatment of cancer of the female breast is reflected not only in such parameters as local recurrence rate and survival times, but also in the development of surgical complications. Within the framework of a study investigating the performance and quality assurance in surgical treatment of breast cancer, therefore, the wound infection rate (WIR) and factors influencing it were analysed in a large patient population. METHODS: In the period between 1.1.2000 and 31.12.2000, 84 surgical departments participated in a prospective multicenter study to investigate primary surgery for breast cancer. A total of 1 416 patients were recruited to the study, the organization and conduction of which was in the hands of the former surgical department 1 of the University of Leipzig under the patronage of the East German Working Group for Performance and Quality Control in Surgery in cooperation with the An Institute for Quality Control in Operative Medicine of the Otto-von-Guericke University in Magdeburg. In addition to parameters characterizing patients, tumors and diagnostic work-up, we also analysed the surgical treatment and its possible complications with the aid of a questionnaire. The definition of wound infection was based on the criteria of the "Hospital Infection Control Practice Advisory Committee". RESULTS: The overall WIR was 4.5 % (n = 65). 21 (32 %) of the wound infections (WI) were diagnosed exclusively on a clinical basis without establishing the responsible pathogens. In 44 (68 %) of the WI, a search for the pathogen was undertaken which in 3 cases (7 %) was negative, and in 41 cases (93 %) positive. 118 (8.3 %) of the patients received perioperative antibiotic cover. The following parameters were found to have a significant influence on WIR: local drainage, blood transfusion, the time lapse between biopsy and definitive surgery, and the size of the primary tumor. DISCUSSION: Some of the above factors (transfusion, time lapse, drainage) can be influenced by the therapist. The wound infection rate is a marker for treatment quality.

Kolonkarzinome stellen unverändert einen der häufigsten malignen Tumoren in der westlichen Welt dar. Multizentrische Beobachtungsstudien haben wichtige Erkenntnisse über die flächendeckende Versorgungsqualität der Patienten in der klinischen Routine erbracht. Eine Qualitätssteigerung in der Behandlung ist durch eine weitere Verbesserung der diagnostischen und therapeutischen Maßnahmen im interdisziplinären Setting zu erreichen. Das Konzept der Darmkrebszentrumsbildung verfolgt eine Optimierung der objektivierbaren Behandlungsergebnisse durch die Strukturbildung einer interdisziplinär und transsektoral wirkenden Einheit, welche die gesamte Versorgungskette für den Patienten umfasst. Die Implementierung der aktuellen Erkenntnisse der evidenzbasierten Medizin in den klinischen Alltag, die Überprüfung der Anwendung der Leitlinieninhalte durch externe Fachexperten in Form eines Audits und das steuernde Korrigieren bei analysierten Defiziten im Behandlungsprozess stellen den Garant für eine kontinuierliche Weiterentwicklung dar.

<b>Hintergrund:</b> Die Adenokarzinome des ösophagogastralen Übergangs stellen eine eigene Entität dar. Die Prognose ist im Vergleich zu den distalen Magenkarzinomen schlechter. Multizentrische Daten der Versorgungsforschung sollen die aktuelle Behandlungssituation besonders auch nach Etablierung der neoadjuvanten Verfahren zeigen. <b>Patienten und Methode:</b> Im Rahmen der prospektiven multizentrischen Beobachtungsstudie QCGC 2 (Deutsche Magenkarzinomstudie 2) wurden im Zeitraum vom 01. 01. 2007 bis 31. 12. 2009 544 Adenokarzinome des ösophagogastralen Übergangs (AEG 1–3) erfasst. <b>Ergebnisse:</b> Die Patienten wurden in 108 (76,6 %) der 141 beteiligten Kliniken operiert. Bei 391 (82,5 %) Patienten war eine R0-Resektion möglich. Fast 60 % der AEG-Tumoren wurden in Kliniken operiert, die weniger als 10 Kardiakarzinome/Untersuchungszeitraum (3 Jahre) behandelten. Endosonografiert wurde in 283 Fällen (53 %), und die Rate der neoadjuvanten Behandlung lag bei 34,4 % (n = 187). Eine intraoperative Schnellschnittuntersuchung erfolgte bei 242 Patienten (60,8 %). Bei dem sehr heterogenen Eingriffsmuster wurde neben einem eingeschränkten transthorakalen Vorgehen (20 %) eine Rate mediastinaler Lymphadenektomien von 47 % beobachtet. Die Hospitalletalität betrug 6,6 %. Die Adenokarzinome des ösophagogastralen Übergangs zeigten stadienunabhängig ein signifikant kürzeres medianes Überleben (25 Monate) als die distalen Karzinome des Magens (38 Monate). Auch die 5-JÜR sind mit 33,1 % für die AEG-Patienten deutlich schlechter gegenüber 41,4 % für Patienten mit einem distalen Magenkarzinom. Ein Überlebensvorteil durch eine neoadjuvante Behandlung konnte im vorliegenden Krankengut nicht signifikant nachgewiesen werden. <b>Schlussfolgerung:</b> Die flächendeckenden Ergebnisse nach Behandlung der Karzinome des ösophagogastralen Übergangs können auch nach der Etablierung multimodaler Verfahren nicht zufriedenstellen. Besonders moderne diagnostische und operative Strategien müssen breiter eingesetzt bzw. geändert werden. In dieser Hinsicht erscheint eine Zentralisierung dieser Entität sinnvoll.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical quality control in the form of multicentre studies make it possible to analyse the treatment status of a given surgical illness under quality assurance aspects. MATERIAL/METHODS: On 1. 1. 2000, under the patronage of the Convent of Hospital Chief Surgeons a project (ongoing) - organised and conducted by the Institute for Quality Management in Operative Medicine at the Otto-von-Guericke University of Magdeburg - was initiated to document and collect the data of patients with colorectal cancer throughout the whole of Germany. This work is supported by the German Society of Surgery, and the Surgical Working Group, Quality Assurance within the German Society of Surgery. Currently, some 282 hospitals throughout the country are involved in establishing a prospective documentation of colorectal carcinoma. Participation in this study is on a voluntary basis. The anonymity of both patients and hospitals is guaranteed, and no hospitals wishing to participate are excluded. Both operatively and conservatively treated patients are being documented, and no randomization takes place. RESULTS: In the year 2000, the participating hospitals documented a total of 9 477 patients with a colorectal carcinoma, including 6 975 patients with a carcinoma of the colon, and 3 402 with a rectal carcinoma. The average age of the patients was 68.5 years, and there were 5 010 men and 4 467 women. The operation rate was 99.2 %, the resection rate 95.6 %. The abdominoperineal resection rate was 27.4 %. The indicators for diagnostic quality as set out by Hermanek were largely complied with, but some deviations were noted. DISCUSSION: On the basis of the data collected, structures were established for a uniform Germany-wide quality management for a clinical condition with a major health policy impact. This information make it possible for the hospitals to identify and eliminate deficits in the structural and process quality in the diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer, and in this way to improve outcome quality. This means that the results of medical care research have an immediate impact on the individual treatment received by a given patient.

By means of a prospective multi centre study, 13 419 cases of surgically treated patients with rectum carcinomas were registered between 1.1.2000 and 31.12.2003 and assessed in regard to possible problems concerning indications and operative procedures. Beside a high rate of non-local resective procedures in T1-low risk carcinomas, unnecessary extirpations in cases of tumour localisation over 8 cm from the anal verge were found. Tumours of the lower two-thirds of the rectum were treated by incomplete TME in 20 % of the patients. In addition, there seems to be too low a rate of neo-adjuvant therapy procedures. Protective stomata were frequently foregone after low anterior resection. Endoscopic interventional methods were still used reluctantly in inoperable situations.

Abstract Es wird ein bruchmechanisches Materialermüdungsmodell entwickelt, mit dem die Wöhler‐Linie für Aluminium‐Gusslegierungen aus den Kenngrößen des statischen Zugversuchs 0,2 %‐Dehngrenze, Zugfestigkeit und Elastizitätsmodul sowie auch aus dem sekundären Dendritenarmabstand des Gussgefüges berechnet werden kann.