Search

Purpose:The DNA damage immune response (DDIR) assay was developed in breast cancer based on biology associated with deficiencies in homologous recombination and Fanconi anemia pathways. A positive DDIR call identifies patients likely to respond to platinum-based chemotherapies in breast and esophageal cancers. In colorectal cancer, there is currently no biomarker to predict response to oxaliplatin. We tested the ability of the DDIR assay to predict response to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in colorectal cancer and characterized the biology in DDIR-positive colorectal cancer.Experimental Design:Samples and clinical data were assessed according to DDIR status from patients who received either 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or 5FUFA (bolus and infusion 5-FU with folinic acid) plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) within the FOCUS trial (n = 361, stage IV), or neoadjuvant FOLFOX in the FOxTROT trial (n = 97, stage II/III). Whole transcriptome, mutation, and IHC data of these samples were used to interrogate the biology of DDIR in colorectal cancer.Results:Contrary to our hypothesis, DDIR-negative patients displayed a trend toward improved outcome for oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy compared with DDIR-positive patients. DDIR positivity was associated with microsatellite instability (MSI) and colorectal molecular subtype 1. Refinement of the DDIR signature, based on overlapping IFN-related chemokine signaling associated with DDIR positivity across colorectal cancer and breast cancer cohorts, further confirmed that the DDIR assay did not have predictive value for oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in colorectal cancer.Conclusions:DDIR positivity does not predict improved response following oxaliplatin treatment in colorectal cancer. However, data presented here suggest the potential of the DDIR assay in identifying immune-rich tumors that may benefit from immune checkpoint blockade, beyond current use of MSI status.

Supplementary Results

Figures S1-S9, Tables S1, S2

supplementary methods

Introduction: We previously identified an immune-driven gene expression signature recognizing loss of the Fanconi Anemia/BRCA DNA repair pathway - the DNA damage immune response (DDIR) assay. This 44-gene expression-based assay predicted response to DNA damaging chemotherapy in breast cancer, with a 5-year relapse-free survival hazard ratio of 0.37 post adjuvant treatment in assay positive patients. We demonstrated constitutive activation of the cGAS-STING pathway as the underlying mechanism driving immune gene expression in this subgroup, as a result of aberrant cytoplasmic DNA due to deficient DNA repair. We sought to evaluate efficacy of this immune-based signature in predicting response to neoadjuvant DNA-damaging chemotherapy (NAC) in breast cancer. Methods: Patients with early breast cancer were recruited from 2 Northern Ireland centres. All received 3 cycles of 5FU, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (FEC) chemotherapy initially, with subsequent taxane/HER2 targeted therapies as indicated. Formalin fixed paraffin embedded tumor samples were obtained at baseline, post 3 cycles of FEC and at resection. Chemotherapy response was assessed by residual cancer burden (RCB) scoring. Gene expression data was obtained from all baseline samples and 18 midpoint samples containing sufficient residual tumor. DDIR assay call was determined using a predetermined cut-off. Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) were assessed at each time point on H&E stained sections. In addition, gene expression signatures (n=62) encompassing 6 hallmarks of cancer (Immune response, Genome instability, Angiogenesis, EMT, Cell death and Proliferation) were reported using the Almac ClaraT platform. Results: 46 patients were recruited - 26 were assay positive, with high immune gene expression, and 20 assay negative. The DDIR assay predicted NAC response with an odds ratio for RCB 0-1 of 4.67 (95% CI 1.13 - 15.09; p = 0.03). In patients with DDIR positive tumors, there was a strong association with immune response and immune checkpoint response signatures (p < 0.0001), as well as TILs in baseline biopsies (p =0.0262). Matched baseline and mid-point (after 3 cycles of FEC chemotherapy) gene expression analysis was available for 17 non-responders and 4 responders. In responding tumors a trend to reduced immune gene expression was seen, with an associated reduction in TILs (p = 0.0573), probably reflecting eradication of DDIR positive tumor cells (decreased tumor content on midpoint specimens in responders was noted compared to non-responders (p = 0.0257)). Conversely, increased DDIR signature score was observed in non-responders post FEC chemotherapy (p = 0.0332), with a trend to increased TIL infiltration (p = 0.0792). Immune checkpoint gene expression also increased following NAC in these patients. DDIR negative non-responding tumors demonstrated upregulation of angiogenesis signatures at baseline (p < 0.01), along with higher scores for TGFβ driven immune resistance signatures (p < 0.05), suggesting other potential therapeutic approaches for these patients. Conclusions: The cGAS-STING driven DDIR gene expression assay is predictive of response to neoadjuvant DNA damaging chemotherapy and is associated with high baseline immune infiltration. In keeping with the recent TONIC trial, we note anthracycline-based treatment as a potent activator of innate immunity. In non-responders, although TIL infiltration and immune gene expression is induced by DNA damaging chemotherapy, tumors do not respond, presumably due to intact DNA repair pathways and immune checkpoint gene induction. Therefore, there is a rationale to offer this population induction anthracycline-based chemotherapy followed by immune checkpoint targeting treatment to improve outcome. Citation Format: Stuart A McIntosh, Kienan I Savage, Colin James, Tong Lioe, Steven Walker, Keith Lowry, Laura Knight, Andrena McGavigan, Gemma Logan, Jane Hurwitz, Stephen J Kirk, Paul Harkin, Richard D Kennedy, Eileen E Parkes. cGAS-STING driven immune activation predicts response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and suggests rational IO combination therapies: Results of the Neo-DDIR study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-10-17.

Background: The DDRD assay was developed to prospectively identify a molecular subtype of cancers defined by DNA damage activated immune signalling. This 44-gene assay has been validated to predict response to anthracycline-cyclophosphamide chemotherapy in both the adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings in breast cancer. The biomarker phase Neo-DDRD trial assessed the clinical utility of this assay prospectively in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Methods: 48 patients receiving NAC for early (T1-2, N0-1) or locally advanced non-metastatic breast cancer were recruited from March 2014 – Sept 2017. Chemotherapy regimen was selected according to local standard-of-care guidelines (FEC “100” in N0, FEC-D in N1, FEC-DH in HER2 +ve, with the addition of pertuzumab when approved). The DDRD score was applied to RNA expression data obtained from pre-treatment FFPE core biopsies using a custom cDNA microarray (Breast Cancer DSA™). Response to NAC was assessed on resection specimens following definitive surgical treatment by pathologists blinded to the DDRD scores, using the Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) assessment tool. Results: Patients with a positive DDRD assay call had an odds ratio for pathological complete response (pCR) or minimal residual disease (RCB0/RCB1) of 4.64 (95%CI 1.31-16.42; p = 0.0174). Patients with RCB0/RCB1 had significantly higher DDRD assay score than those with class RCB2/RCB3 responses (p =0.0011; unpaired t-test). Tumour subtype and DDRD call are summarised in Table 1. In total, 29.2% of patients had a pathological complete response (pCR) (RCB0). Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) were assessed on baseline pre-treatment samples. Increasing DDRD assay score was not significantly associated with increasing stromal TILs (p=0.1403; Pearson correlation). In assessing correlation between stromal TILs and response to chemotherapy, there was no significant difference found across RCB categories (p=0.45; one way ANOVA). Table 1:tumour subtype distribution and DDRD assay resultSubtypeDDRD+DDRD-TotalTriple negative7613HER2+ ER-527HER2+ ER+6612ER+ HER2-8816 Conclusions: Preliminary results from the Neo-DDRD biomarker phase trial support the ability of the DDRD assay to predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The DDRD assay was confirmed to be a better predictor of neoadjuvant chemotherapy response than the presence of TILs. Translational work from this trial is ongoing: serial tissue and plasma samples collected at treatment mid-point and surgical resection will be used to study changes in RNA expression profiles in both DDRD assay positive and negative during chemotherapy, as well as changes in tumour immune infiltrates, peripheral chemokines and circulating tumour DNA profiles. Based on the results from this pilot study, we propose a biomarker-driven phase II trial in the neoadjuvant setting using the DDRD assay to stratify patients for treatment. Citation Format: Parkes EE, James CR, Lioe T, Walker S, Savage KI, Lowry K, Knight L, McCavigan A, Logan G, Hurwitz J, Kirk SJ, Harkin P, Kennedy RD, McIntosh SA. Biomarker phase neo-DDRD trial: Predicting response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in early breast cancer using the DNA damage repair deficiency (DDRD) assay [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-11-12.

4539 Background: The Dual Erb B Inhibition in Oesophago-gastric Cancer (DEBIOC) trial reported an acceptable safety profile for neoadjuvant Xelox +/- AZD8931 but limited efficacy. We utilized EAC patient samples from DEBIOC to evaluate the impact of neoadjuvant Xelox +/-AZD8931 on biological pathways using a unique software driven solution. Methods: 24 pre-treatment FFPE EAC biopsies and 17 matched surgical resection specimens were transcriptionally profiled using the Almac Diagnostics Xcel Array. Gene expression data was analyzed using the Almac claraT total mRNA report V3.0.0, reporting on 92 gene expression signatures and 7337 single genes associated with 10 key biologies. Paired Wilcoxon tests (5% significance level) were used to evaluate changes in claraT scores pre- and post-treatment. EGFR and Her2 expression were assessed by IHC and FISH. Results: 15 patients received Xelox+AZD8931 and 9 Xelox alone. Hierarchical clustering of biopsies identified 4 major clusters: Inflammation active, Genomic Instability active, EGFR & MAPK active, and EMT & Angiogenesis active. Comparison of signature scores pre- and post- neoadjuvant treatment demonstrated a significant reduction in scores relating to DNA damage repair (DDR) deficiency (Almac DNA Damage assay, p< 0.0001; BRCAness Profile, p= 0.0025; HRD Gene Signature, p< 0.0001; BRCA1ness Signature, p= 0.0004) and a significant increase in angiogenesis signatures (Almac Angiogenesis Assay, p= 0.0002; Angio Predictive G model, p= 0.0228; Angiogenesis Signature A, p= 0.0034) and EMT signatures (EMT Signature, p= 0.0031, EMT Enrichment Score, p= 0.0013, Pan-Can EMT Signature B, p= 0.0001). Comparing pre- and post-treatment signature scores in patients treated with Xelox +/-AZD8931 revealed a significant reduction in EGFR Sensitivity Signature ( p= 0.0088), ERBB2-specific Gene Expression Signature ( p= 0.0127) and Hallmark PI3K-AKT-MTOR Signaling ( p= 0.0195) in those treated with Xelox + AZD8931 in keeping with the mechanism of action of AZD8931. Downregulation of AKT signaling was confirmed in AZD8931 treated and resistant cell lines. Conclusions: We report the use of a novel software tool to apply 92 gene expression signatures to EAC biopsy and resection specimens from the DEBIOC trial to provide insight into mechanisms of action. Neoadjuvant treatment was associated with a reduction in DDR deficiency and an increase in angiogenesis and EMT signatures whilst a reduction in EGFR, Her2 and AKT pathways was noted with AZD8931 treatment.

PURPOSE To independently validate two biomarkers, a 44-gene DNA damage immune response (DDIR) signature and stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs), as prognostic markers in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) treated with adjuvant doxorubicin (A) and cyclophosphamide (C) in SWOG 9313. METHODS Four hundred twenty-five centrally determined patient cases with TNBC from S9313 were identified. DDIR signature was performed on RNA isolated from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor tissue, and samples were classified as DDIR negative or positive using predefined cutoffs. Evaluation of sTILs was performed as described previously. Markers were tested for prognostic value for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) using Cox regression models adjusted for treatment assignment, nodal status, and tumor size. RESULTS Among 425 patients with TNBC, 33% were node positive. DDIR was tested successfully in 90% of patients (381 of 425), 62% of which were DDIR signature positive. DDIR signature positivity was associated with improved DFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.92; P = .015) and OS (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.89; P = .010). sTILs density assessment was available in 99% of patients and was associated with improved DFS (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.96; P = .026 for sTILs density ≥ 20% v < 20%) and OS (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.85; P = .004 for sTILs density ≥ 20% v < 20%). DDIR signature score and sTILs density were moderately correlated ( r = 0.60), which precluded statistical significance for DFS in a joint model. Three-year DFS and OS in a subgroup of patients with DDIR positivity and T1c/T2N0 disease were 88% and 94%, respectively. CONCLUSION The prognostic role of sTILs and DDIR in early-stage TNBC was confirmed. DDIR signature conferred improved prognosis in two thirds of patients with TNBC treated with adjuvant AC. DDIR signature has the potential to stratify outcome and to identify patients with less projected benefit after AC chemotherapy.

439 Background: The benefit of checkpoint blockade in advanced gastric cancer is limited and biomarkers related to response are needed. Novel gene expression analysis software was used to identify Hallmarks of Cancer associated with clinical benefit following nivolumab treatment in >2nd line advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA). Methods: RNA-sequencing data from baseline GEA patient diagnostic tumor samples (103 from NCT02862535; 5 from NCT02862535) were analyzed using the claraT platform (V2.0.0, Almac Diagnostic Services). 62 gene signatures were quantified representing 6 key Hallmarks of Cancer (Avoiding Immune Destruction, Activating Invasion and Metastases, Sustaining Proliferative Signaling, Inducing Angiogenesis, Resisting Cell Death and Genome Instability and Mutation). Clinical benefit (CB) was defined as tumor response or overall survival (OS) > 1 year. HER2 status was from medical records. Survival analyses used cox proportional hazards models. Results: Gene expression signatures (GES) identified 5 molecular subgroups (C1-C5). Rate of CB in each molecular subtype are outlined in Table. C3 and C4 had significantly improved OS compared to C2, (HR = 0.45; p= 0.02 and HR = 0.42; p= 0.02). Greater proportions of HER2+ subjects were present in C4 and C3 vs. C2, with C3 statistically significant (60% vs. 14%; p= 0.012). Gene expression characterized by chromosomal instability (CIN) and homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRD) were associated with HER2(+) (wilcox p= < 0.05). Patients selected by only using CIN & HRD had significant improvement in OS (HR = 0.63; p= 0.03). Conclusions: Interferon-based GES did not predict benefit from immune checkpoint blockade. GES representing HRD and activation of HER2, EGFR and MAPK (each enriched in CIN) were associated with improved survival upon checkpoint blockade in advanced GEA patients. Clinical trial information: NCT02862535 . [Table: see text]

Background There is a clear need for assays that can predict the risk of metastatic prostate cancer following curative procedures. Importantly these assays must be analytically robust in order to provide quality data for important clinical decisions. DNA microarray based gene expression assays measure several analytes simultaneously and can present specific challenges to analytical validation. This study describes the analytical validation of one such assay designed to predict metastatic recurrence in prostate cancer using primary formalin fixed paraffin embedded tumour material. Methods Accuracy was evaluated with a method comparison study between the assay development platform (Prostate Disease Specific Array) and an alternative platform (Xcel™ microarray) using 50 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded prostate cancer patient samples. An additional 70 samples were used to establish the assay reportable range. Determination of assay precision and sensitivity was performed on multiple technical replicates of three prostate cancer samples across multiple variables (operators, days, runs, reagent lots, and equipment) and RNA/cDNA inputs respectively using the appropriate linear mixed model. Results The overall agreement between the development and alternative platform was 94.7% (95% confidence interval, 86.9–98.5%). The reportable range was determined to be 0.150 to 1.107 for core needle biopsy samples and − 0.214 to 0.844 for radical prostatectomy samples. From the precision study, the standard deviations for assay repeatability and reproducibility were 0.032 and 0.040 respectively. The sensitivity study demonstrated that a total RNA input and cDNA input of 50 ng and 3.5 μg respectively was conservative. Conclusion The Metastatic Assay was found to be highly reproducible and precise. In conclusion the studies demonstrated an acceptable analytical performance for the assay and support its potential use in the clinic. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12920-018-0442-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Radiotherapy is an effective treatment of intermediate/high-risk locally advanced prostate cancer, however,>30% of patients relapse within 5 years. Clinicopathological parameters currently fail to identify patients prone to systemic relapse and those whom treatment intensification may be beneficial. The purpose of this study was to independently validate the performance of a 70-gene Metastatic Assay in a cohort of diagnostic biopsies from patients treated with radical radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy. Patients and methods A bridging cohort of prostate cancer diagnostic biopsy specimens was profiled to enable optimization of the Metastatic Assay threshold before further independent clinical validation in a cohort of diagnostic biopsies from patients treated with radical radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to assess assay performance in predicting biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS) and metastasis-free survival (MFS). Results Gene expression analysis was carried out in 248 patients from the independent validation cohort and the Metastatic Assay applied. Ten-year MFS was 72% for Metastatic Assay positive patients and 94% for Metastatic Assay negative patients [HR¼3.21 (1.35–7.67); P¼0.003]. On multivariable analysis the Metastatic Assay remained predictive for development of distant metastases [HR¼2.71 (1.11–6.63); P¼0.030]. The assay retained independent prognostic performance for MFS when assessed with the Cancer of the Prostate Assessment Score (CAPRA) [HR¼3.23 (1.22–8.59); P¼0.019] whilst CAPRA itself was not significant [HR¼1.88, (0.52–6.77); P¼0.332]. A high concordance [100% (61.5–100)] for the assay result was noted between two separate foci taken from 11 tumours, whilst Gleason score had low concordance. Conclusions The Metastatic Assay demonstrated significant prognostic performance in patients treated with radical radiotherapy both alone and independent of standard clinical and pathological variables. The Metastatic Assay could have clinical utility when deciding upon treatment intensification in high-risk patients. Genomic and clinical data are available as a public resource.

Background: Approximately 4-25% of patients with early prostate cancer develop disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy.Objective: To identify a molecular subgroup of prostate cancers with metastatic potential at presentation resulting in a high risk of recurrence following radical prostatectomy.Design, setting, and participants: Unsupervised hierarchical clustering was performed using gene expression data from 70 primary resections, 31 metastatic lymph nodes, and 25 normal prostate samples. Independent assay validation was performed using 322 radical prostatectomy samples from four sites with a mean follow-up of 50.3 months.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Molecular subgroups were identified using unsupervised hierarchical clustering. A partial least squares approach was used to generate a gene expression assay. Relationships with outcome (time to biochemical and metastatic recurrence) were analysed using multivariable Cox regression and log-rank analysis.Results and limitations: A molecular subgroup of primary prostate cancer with biology similar to metastatic disease was identified. A 70-transcript signature (metastatic assay) was developed and independently validated in the radical prostatectomy samples. Metastatic assay positive patients had increased risk of biochemical recurrence (multivariable hazard ratio [HR] 1.62 [1.13-2.33]; p = 0.0092) and metastatic recurrence (multivariable HR = 3.20 [1.76-5.80]; p = 0.0001). A combined model with Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment post surgical (CAPRA-S) identified patients at an increased risk of biochemical and metastatic recurrence superior to either model alone (HR = 2.67 [1.90-3.75]; p < 0.0001 and HR = 7.53 [4.13-13.73]; p < 0.0001, respectively). The retrospective nature of the study is acknowledged as a potential limitation.Conclusions: The metastatic assay may identify a molecular subgroup of primary prostate cancers with metastatic potential.Patient summary: The metastatic assay may improve the ability to detect patients at risk of metastatic recurrence following radical prostatectomy. The impact of adjuvant therapies should be assessed in this higher-risk population. (C) 2017 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

e21045 Background: Traditionally gene expression signatures (GES) are used individually to classify patients into subgroups. Signatures targeting the same biology are often developed independently and may not classify identically. We developed the claraT software tool that uses consensus between multiple published GES categorised by the Hallmarks of Cancer (Hanahan & Weinberg, 2011) to classify cancers. As metastatic melanoma represents poor prognostic disease (5-yr survival 15-20%), we applied claraT to the TCGA melanoma dataset to identify targetable biologies, validated in a cohort of melanoma patients treated with Ipilimumab. Methods: TCGA RNA-seq data ( n= 472) was analysed using the claraT platform including GES for immune ( n= 14), angiogenesis ( n= 9) and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) ( n= 12) Hallmarks. Samples were clustered for the combined and individual Hallmarks. Median progression-free (PFS) and overall-survival (OS) differences were analysed across identified subgroups. Analysis was validated in an Ipilimumab treated melanoma dataset ( n= 42) (Van Allen, 2015). Results: Clustering the combined Hallmarks identified 4 subgroups in the TCGA cohort: 1) Immune active, 2) Immune-EMT active, 3) EMT-Angiogenesis active, 4) All inactive. Groups 1&2 had significantly improved OS compared to Groups 3&4 (HR = 0.50, p< 0.0001). Clustering using single Hallmarks revealed that immune-positive tumours had significantly improved OS (HR = 0.53, p< 0.0001) compared to immune-negative tumours. Angiogenesis-negative tumours displayed improved PFS (HR = 0.73, p= 0.03) and OS (HR = 0.53, p

11 Background: Approximately 20% of patients with organ confined prostate cancer (PCa) will develop disease recurrence following radical treatment (surgery or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT)). We hypothesized that a molecular subgroup of early PCa may have metastatic potential at presentation, resulting in disease recurrence. Methods: Using unsupervised hierarchical clustering of gene expression from a PCa dataset we identified a novel molecular subgroup with a transcriptional profile similar to metastatic disease. We developed a 70 gene expression assay to prospectively identify patients within the subgroup from formalin fixed and paraffin embedded tissue (FFPE). Initial assessment found the assay to be prognostic in three independent publicly available prostatectomy datasets. We therefore assessed the prognostic value of the assay in FFPE clinical samples collected from multiple international sites. FFPE tumor resections and tumor biopsy specimens were obtained from 322 surgical patients and 248 patients treated with EBRT. Regions of highest Gleason grade were identified for macrodissection, RNA extraction and gene expression analysis. Samples were dichotomized as metastatic biology assay positive or negative using a pre-specified cut-off. The association of assay results with biochemical failure (BF) and distant metastases (DM) was tested on multivariate (MVA). Results: The assay was significantly associated with BF on MVA (HR 1.67 [1.16-2.38]; p = 0.0059), (HR 2.26 [1.26-4.04]; p = 0.0062) and DM on MVA (HR 3.39 [1.88-6.12]; p = 0.0001), (HR 3.26 [1.27-8.30]; p = 0.0137) for surgery and EBRT cohorts respectively. Importantly, in a combined model, the assay demonstrated additional information to the commonly used CAPRA clinical tool for prediction of DM, HR 2.72 [2.10-3.51]; p < 0.0001, and HR 2.72 [1.42-5.20]; p = 0.0026 (Prostate Metastatic Assay combined with CAPRA-S and CAPRA respectively). Conclusions: The metastatic biology assay predicts BF and DM in PCa patients treated with surgery or EBRT. The assay may help to select patients at risk of metastatic disease for additional treatment aimed at preventing disease recurrence.

Blood cells, molecules, & diseases : BCMD 54(1), 123-131 (2015). doi:10.1016/j.bcmd.2014.07.009, Published by Elsevier, San Diego, Ca.

Abstract 1232 Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a hematological malignancy of the myeloid lineage characterized by an accumulation of abnormal immature white blood cells as a result of arrested myeloid differentiation. In the clinical setting, promyelocytic leukemic cells can be induced to differentiate into mature granulocytes by all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA), which acts by targeting oncogenic transcription factors. Expression profiling has previously identified ASB2, a member of the ankyrin repeat and SOCS box protein family as an ATRA target gene. ASBs negatively regulate cytokine signaling by mediating the ubiquitination of a broad range of target proteins. Furthermore, ASB proteins may regulate hematopoietic differentiation as suggested by ASB2 mediated degradation of the mixed lineage leukemia (MLL) protein and HOX gene down-regulation. MLL fusion proteins, present in approximately 10% of AML cases, have been found to be resistant to ASB2 mediated degradation which may contribute to leukemogenesis. Given that ASB2 plays a role in modulating differentiation and is ATRA induced it is feasible that other family members behave similarly. To understand the role of ASB proteins in hematopoietic differentiation we examined the expression profiles of ASB genes during normal myeloid differentiation using cells isolated at each stage of differentiation towards the granulocyte lineage. Alongside this, both ATRA-induced and DMSO-induced differentiation in AML cell lines (HL-60 and NB4) was assessed. In addition, ASB expression was analysed in the MILE study, which encompasses expression profiling of 16 leukemic subtypes, an independent cohort of clinically phenotyped patient samples, and normal bone marrow. Candidate ASBs who exhibited significantly different expression were identified by bioinformatic analysis of the MILE study and patient samples. One candidate (ASB3) was selected for silencing by shRNA and the resultant phenotype was assessed by proliferation ability, apoptosis potential and differentiation capacity. Furthermore, ASB3 silencing was analysed by Affymetrix microarrays to identify potential targets of ASB3. ASBs were found to be differentially expressed throughout normal hematopoietic differentiation with the highest expression in immature cells. In particular, ASB3 exhibited a two-fold decrease (p As ASB3 is highly expressed in myeloid progenitors and loss of expression blocks ATRA-induced differentiation it is possible ASB3 may play a role in myeloid differentiation. Little is known about the function of ASB3 although it has been suggested that it is a negative regulator of tumor necrosis factor receptor II (TNF-R2). Our study, and others, would suggest that it may have a role in the regulation of transcription factors important for differentiation e.g. HOX genes, as with ASB2. Furthermore, poor prognosis AML exhibited lower ASB3 expression predominantly in the most immature AML subtypes which suggests that without ASB3 the AML cells are unable to differentiate. Additional studies are required to develop our understanding of the function of ASB3 in myeloid differentiation and its contribution to leukemogenesis. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

ObjectiveCurrent strategies to guide selection of neoadjuvant therapy in oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) are inadequate. We assessed the ability of a DNA damage immune response (DDIR) assay to predict response following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in OAC.DesignTranscriptional profiling of 273 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded prechemotherapy endoscopic OAC biopsies was performed. All patients were treated with platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy and resection between 2003 and 2014 at four centres in the Oesophageal Cancer Clinical and Molecular Stratification consortium. CD8 and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemical staining was assessed in matched resection specimens from 126 cases. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis were applied according to DDIR status for recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS).ResultsA total of 66 OAC samples (24%) were DDIR positive with the remaining 207 samples (76%) being DDIR negative. DDIR assay positivity was associated with improved RFS (HR: 0.61; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.98; p=0.042) and OS (HR: 0.52; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.88; p=0.015) following multivariate analysis. DDIR-positive patients had a higher pathological response rate (p=0.033), lower nodal burden (p=0.026) and reduced circumferential margin involvement (p=0.007). No difference in OS was observed according to DDIR status in an independent surgery-alone dataset.DDIR-positive OAC tumours were also associated with the presence of CD8+ lymphocytes (intratumoural: pConclusionThe DDIR assay is strongly predictive of benefit from DNA-damaging neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgical resection and is associated with a proinflammatory microenvironment in OAC.